Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have been reverted, as seen here [6][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

• Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
  • Ex1, 1 minute difference
  • Ex2, 1 hour
  • Ex3, 7 minute difference
  • Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

• Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
• Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
• Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

• Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
• After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
• Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously made a post about this on WP:AN, but the post was auto-archived. This is a revision of the following comments made by the subject WikiEditor1234567123 on WP:AN and my replies after. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I have the right to defend myself here. I don't have any cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks, which you mainly argument because of the diffs that you brought up which showed some time differences. Because I mainly edit on Ingush-themed or Caucasian-themed articles and am very active in Wikipedia for most of the part, when I see that an article in my watchlist is edited by someone - I sometimes go immediately "clean-up" the article or correct them. That's why there's sometimes these time differences that you mentioned. Regarding Russian Wikipedia, I was quickly banned there, due to my big mistakes in not providing a source for my claims, that however doesn't stop me from editing on other wikiprojects to make a good contribution. Also note that I was banned there 5 months ago, during this period people change! I immediately understood my mistakes and learned from them, and now I always provide sources for my claims. The other stuff you attributed to me is false as well, saying that I misrepresent sources and edit nationalistically etc. I hope this gives an answer to everything. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move it to SPI then? Even if it includes possible meatpuppeting too? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think SPI deals with meatpuppets, so it could probably just stay here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other noticeboard I can post this in? It seems like my post isn't getting any attention despite the heap of evidence provided. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPI can handle meatpuppetry as well, and given that many cases involve a mix of the two it's worth sending there. I think that the evidence presented here is sufficient to warrant a checkuser investigation, and for that SPI is the place to go. If the results of a checkuser are negative or inconclusive, the behavioral evidence will be evaluated further and either actioned or referred back to ANI for discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, we should probably close this and open a discussion at SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll open a case at SPI. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rosguill. This is the link for the investigation. Not sure if I did it correctly, could you take a look? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ola Tønningsberg Looks good to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update for the time being.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this until the SPI is solved Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahmaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are constant citation mistakes, anytime I fix them the user HistoryofIran undos all my work. The book itself states it's from Kurdistan. Since this person has been on Wikipedia for along time, they're getting away with blatantly hoarding Kurdish pages and changed history. We tried to talk with this user on Talk multiple times, but they keep gaslighting and ignoring all our citations and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojin416 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the info is right or not isn't the point here, it's the fact that you you asked for help off-wiki, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know that wasn't allowed. My bad. Rojin416 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't know that removing/altering sourced info, using non-WP:RS, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't allowed either? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was using reliable sources. Infact, I was even using the approved citations and reliables sources, that clearly state it was Yazidi's and Kurds from Kurdistan. Maybe if you took the time to actually read the citated resources, you wouldn't keep undoing "A Story from the Mountains of Kurdistan." to "A Story from the Mountains of Turkey."

The citation is right there. Infront of you. Maybe learn how to read and get rid of that vendetta you have against Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the name of the title, that being the only constructive edit done by OP. I suggest that OP gets indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, off-wiki coordination, and so on. This screams WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rojin416 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still over 4 mistakes with that page. Rojin416 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, who is we? Is this account controlled by more than one person? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this sounds suspicious. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit off-wiki coordination at Shahmaran

Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, Rojin416 beat me to it. Shahmaran is currently being targeted by brand new users and IPs. One of them, Rojin416 was reverted a few times by me and Aintabli [26] [27] [28], which led him to ask for help at Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/13h03b2/i_need_help_with_wikipedia/). Two weeks ago, a similar thread about the same article was created [29]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reddit, this person has a vendetta against Kurds and is constantly censoring anything related to Kurdistan. The citations itself clearly say "Yazidi kurds", or "from Kurdistan", yet this person constantly undos everything. Rojin416 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, at least be creative with your WP:ASPERSIONS. This users activities here and comment on Reddit clearly demonstrates serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reddit? Are you kidding me? Reddit is most certainly not a reliable source, and accusations should be made with hard evidence, such as diffs. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a redditor myself, I gotta say: redditors love talking out of their asses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but you're an unreliable source for saying that "redditors love talking out of their asses" :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it time for general sanctions on accounts with fewer than 100 edits that bring HistoryofIran to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...you're telling me this a thing that keeps happening? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've lost count on how many times I've seen ANI reports on HistoryofIran on my watchlist. Callmemirela 🍁 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the past 12 months? At least 15 times, and that's just a quick look at the archives. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And it's always some niche thing that few people are familiar with, so it languishes until three days before the next thread starts. Maybe a general sanction to just partial block any account with fewer than 100 edits that brings HistoryofIran to ANI from any page they're in conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not gonna lie, that would make things way more simple. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we vote on this? I agree that HistoryofIran has continuously been the target of many disruptive and libeling newcomers. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is rather wearying, isn't it? Actually, it would actually be quite a trivial edit filter to stop any new editor from starting a thread here that contained the string "HistoryofIran" ... Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, sounds good. I'm new to ANI and this already isn't the first HistoryofIran report I've seen. As for this specific report, I think this could safely be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG against the plaintiff, probably by indeffing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So let me get this straight. You people aren't alarmed by the fact that HistoryOfIran gets reported constantly, but because he's been here a long time, you're all going to give him god level status and going forth ignore every report about him? He has issues with allowing edits, and continues to undo anything related to Kurds or Kurdistan. This isn't my cited source, it's a source that he keeps REVERTING TO. Which he accepts as a cited source:

  ^Nicolaus, Peter (2011). “The Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition and the Snake in Yerevan” Iran & Caucasus. 15 (1/2): 59. JSTOR 41430888. “Furthermore, the serpent

  Was, and still is considered a symbol of good fortune and power among Kurdish people and the “image of Shahmaran (the queen of serpents) is depicted on glass or metal work, seen hung on walls even today”.”Accessed 14 May 2023

  However, for some reason, he won't allow me to write "Kurds" nor "Kurdistan" on the page, even though it's our mythology. I'm not here writing war stories, writing a biography, nor essays, I'm just trying to edit the page to reflect my culture and heritage which is being suppressed by HistoryOfIran. Even using THEE cited source that he himself refuses to accept anything but.

  This is ridiculous. It's evident this user has constantly been complained about in the past, but everyone's solution is just to make it so he never gets reported again? Rojin416 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He always gets reported by new editors that end up indeffed for severe WP:NPOV violations, so stopping those reports would save time for everyone involved. As for this dispute, the Reddit stuff and allegations of bias do not reflect well on you. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous is that Rojin416 is still trying to justify their disruptive editing. That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too. And that's fine, the source is WP:RS (unlike some other ones.. [30]), it can obviously be used, and no one is denying that Kurds believe in the Shahmaran too; it's even mentioned in the article. But how did you use that source? Hmm.. let me see [31] (note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now [32]) - you removed sourced mention of its Armenian, Turkic and Indo-Iranian connections, replacing all of it with "insert something Kurdish here". And thus you got reverted. And I'm not even gonna entertain the rest of stuff you wrote. I do think the Shahmaran article is in a state of mess based on some of the questionable citations, info not even supported by some of the citations, etc, but you did not improve its state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already talked about this in Talk section.

"That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too."

AND YET KURDS/YAZIDI/AND KURDISTAN IS STILL MISSING!

Why are we constantly going in circles? Look at your Armenian citation. It literally states it's the Yazidis that celebrate it.

"note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now"

And the citation that you deleted, literally stated Kurdistan and Kurdish in it. Instead of updating Kurdistan and Kurdish, you delete it. AGAIN, for the millionth time, why you and another user are accused of vandalizing the page and denying Kurds and Kurdistan. Rojin416 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[33]https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29354/1/10731449.pdf

Here read for yourself. It constantly mentions Kurdistan and the Yazidi's. It does not state it originated from Armenia. Rojin416 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread isn't for content disputes. That's the whole point of a talk page and other venues if no consensus is reached. This is about your behaviour. You can't spit out the word vandalism when a discussion doesn't steer your way. This is about your behaviour. Per WP:BRD, the next step would have been having a civil discussion and potentially reaching consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indeffed as a WP:BOOMERANG. I would support more general sanctions as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose an indefinite block. Both Rojin416 and HistoryofIran need to work on their ability to collaborate, and I would support a two-way interaction ban, but indefinitely blocking a productive contributor does more harm than good.  — Freoh 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. With evidence of canvassing, PA, and edit warring, the indef block could have been warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the moment Rojin wrote I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. was the moment an indef became inevitable because there is no way back from such an egregious attack on an editor. The canvassing and the edit warring – good god, look at their contributions – was enough but that was more than enough. Good block, UtherSRG. Thank you. — Trey Maturin™ 17:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also believe that the personal attacks and Reddit canvassing warrant the user being indeffed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rojin416 said that they were unaware of the canvassing policy and owned up to their mistakes. Their attacks are somewhat problematic, but they seem like a good-faith newcomer with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing. Their complaints are in the gray area between personal attack and legitimate conduct dispute. They need time to cool down and learn Wikipedia's culture, not an indefinite block.  — Freoh 14:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't only violate the canvassing policy though, for example they kept attacking me despite being told of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA (though it goes without saying you don't randomly attack people, it's basic etiquette [34]). It seems you're the only one who consider this user to be a "good-faith editor" and "productive contributor," despite their actions, which is concerning. If you think I am doing tendentious edits, feel free to report me - right now you're just doing the same as Rojin416, accusing me of stuff with no evidence, i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS. Rojin416 has deleted all their comments in that thread now, but right after their block they went on another angry rant on Reddit, calling Wikipedia a cesspool or something alike and protesting over Shahmarans recent expansion by an uninvolved user - they clearly don't regret their actions. Don't expect another reply from me, and please don't ping me in this thread again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I again disagree. Prior to the Reddit post being deleted, they were demonstrating POV-pushing, including possible in their latest unblock request. Callmemirela 🍁 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rojin416 was a bin-fire in the making. Their edits were terrible, their personal attacks on HistoryofIran were awful in every way, and it's not a huge surprise for anyone anywhere on the internet to know that rounding up your mates on social media in order to bombard somewhere or someone is always unacceptable behaviour.

Also, Freoh: a cool down block for them? Really? Come on. There are good reasons why we don't do that. — Trey Maturin™ 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing

I'm guessing you've not hung out on ANI much. Because I'll be blunt: HistoryofIran is one of our best resources for fighting against nationalistic POV warriors in these articles. The concerns about HoI invariably come from people trying to push "OUR nation created this, not THOSE people" types of edits. If anything, HoI deserves a medal for putting up with the lengthy battles against these types of accounts, and the number of times they've had to sit waiting on admin action.

Despite the OP's assertion that we're supporting HoI based on the age of their account, the truth is that we're supporting HoI based on the fact they've been right more often than not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of waiting on admin action...cough cough scroll up cough ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Which thread are you referring to? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muhsin97233

Has been open since the 1st of May, pretty clear block candidate, no admin action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volkish Kurden

Volkish Kurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like another brand new user arrived from Reddit, with the same behaviour as Rojin416. I could go into more details (such as them inserting their own words/opinion into articles [35] [36], and thinking that they get to omit a (highly prominent) historian because they dont agree with them [37]) but I hope these diffs suffice;

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii [38]. Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them)

"your edit completely destroyed the page, I had linked the article to the Carduchi hypothesis on the Corduene page however your claim that I had apparently attempted to diminish your reputation was mere tu quoque. As my reasoning for my edit summary was based on a posteriori considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature"

"I decided to skim through your “contributions” to Kurdish articles and have found you constantly use the “right great wrongs” as a way to circumvent the removal of a kurdophobe from wikipedia, I would say that is a very smart move but it is fuelling the misinformation about Kurds."

"merely using your logic against you, plus abhorrent kurdophobia is clearly bannable"

Their userpage bio alone is already pretty concerning; "just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good" Who are these "oppressors"? And who are they to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef block and checkuser/SPI Could be sockfarming. @HistoryofIran: As I said before, your username is one of the reasons why they target and harass you. I know that you want to keep your username, but can you really deal with all of this frustrating stuff? I think a new username would be helpful. At least, those users may stop writing nationalistic/racist rants and focus on the content of your edits. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef block and checkuser per Mann Mann. Clearly there's no good in regularly dealing with newcomers whose off-Wiki campaign is demonstrated by their parallel claims of prejudice, while in the earlier case of Shahmaran, what they did was basically remove or replace anything non-Kurdish. Aintabli (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you’ve victimised yourself once again and when I used your wording against you, you instead rushed to report me because I had provided sufficient evidence against Asatrian being a literal racist ultranationalist, this isn’t about Kurdish nationalism at all, this is the same level as trying to use Hans Günther as a “reliable” source, nonsensical. Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. If someone wants a checkuser to check if it's sock or meat they should start an SPI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I'll make the SPI shortly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's been a significant issue around User:Comp.arch ignoring the talk page consensus established on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely and then making highly disruptive edits that require combing through the article. (and can't be simply reverted due to conflicts)

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[39]]

A consensus was already established by a 50+ comment length talk page (and another talk section). With consensus both before and after Penny was charged. With the overwhelming consensus to include the name. They had no basis to make these changes.

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[40]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

They also broke WP:3RR today. Effectively they've been edit warring while others have been trying improve the article.

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[45]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

Overall it's an issue of disruptive editing and WP:NPOV.

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved as I voted in the RfC on whether to include the name, but I'm not seeing a particularly clear consensus (certainly not "overwhelming consensus") to include the name there. The more recent discussion has more clear support for including the name, but that didn't start until after Comp.arch's edit removing the name.

As for "removing a key detail" that Neely was choked from behind, the article still included that after Comp.arch's edit. Comp.arch removed it from the lead. Whether or not it should be in the lead seems to me a legitimate content question which should be discussed on the talkpage, not a matter for ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the key detail they did in fact remove it from the article bulk with a second edit right after the main one which I had to reintroduce.LoomCreek (talk)

Thanks for reintroducing it, it was a mistake on my part. I was fixing a "bad sentence" I left behind in my other edit, I honestly felt like I was quickly fixing grammar, so I used minor edit checkbox. The part, "from behind" is for sure true, will most likely be brought up at trial. Stating it with his name, what I was getting rid of, per WP:BLPCRIME, makes him look very bad. Without his name in the article I fully support having that phrase in (so my mistake). With his name in the article, then yes it's the truth, but then I'm not sure what to say, we are naming a person doing such apparently bad behaviour. I don't know if it's taught to the Marines to restrain people. It may be the best way. comp.arch (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And re. 3RR, the edit history of that page is pretty fast-moving at the moment, so it's even more important than usual that you provide diffs! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is very clear: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime

This comment is independent of any opinion on Comp.arch's behaviour; he/she may need sanctioning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things, there are now 2 separate sections on the talk page where editors are !voting

• the original 6 May RfC, never closed and still active - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion
• a new discussion at the bottom - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer (again)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault. In a bit of a rush to defuse what I sensed might become a heated situation, I acted too quickly. If any smarter folks have a good plan for combining or otherwise helping out, I would certainly be all for it. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I have recused myself from this for a while, since I have been arguing directly with comp.arch and didn't feel as though my opinions would be appropriate, it appears that in this edit, the user struck out another's comment because of, by their own admission, a dispute over policy interpretation. This, IN COMBINATION WITH their persistent inclusion of long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citations, a meaningful amount of which do not apply to the situation (though admittedly some could easily be misinterpreted) or have repeatedly been addressed and accepted, indicate a potential WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation.

Because of my closeness to the argument, I want to be clear that I am not accusing the editor of intentionally "not getting it" or text-walling to make replying to their posts difficult. I DO believe that they are being bold and adamant about their position, but possibly to the point of disruption. PriusGod (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[46], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you quoted any essays, but there were edit summaries and Talk comments in which you cited essays and guidelines. Regardless, policies and guidelines are not a strict hierarchy, and essays can be a useful way to demonstrate one's interpretation of a specific policy - treating them as though they are irrelevant, or that a policy is always stronger than a guideline and citations of essays have no place in policy disputes is a very effective way to build a lot of ill will towards yourself, and is the core reason why I characterize your behavior in this situation as wikilawyering. Once again, I believe that you have no intent to that end, but that is how your actions are coming across. PriusGod (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that good pointer you have into account. I try to be very careful when I revert, I've then never done it citing an essay only; I've cited policy and pointed out, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF additionally in that revert, as not an argument that my revert was wrong. I recall I ran out of space in that edit summary. It sometimes happens when I want to be extra careful. comp.arch (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[47] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

In NY Times "spent 15 months in jail, the police said" was in the article as some alternative to incarceration, and it's one of the things I changed, quoting the source, and got reverted back to that supposed alternative. I believe I've been improving the article at every turn, I often back down and keep stuff left out or such (seeming) misinfo to persist, to not revert too much. I don't believe I'm the most trigger-happy with the reverts. I assume WP:good_faith of all involved, but that is not assumed by me, or was put into doubt in an edit summary. I'm not sure it belongs there, but I immediately took note of it. On 3RR I see WP:NOT3RR: "7. Removing contentious material that is libelous [..]". In my timezone, I'm not sure I did many reverts per day. I often use revert to actually notify the other person if I believe mistaken or violating policy to give them heads up, as a courtesy. Everyone makes mistakes, if I did I apologize. E.g. omitting "from behind" wasn't actually my intention. I didn't recall that one, [EDIT: I see I actually didn't DID do that, as misreported above about me. Thanks for pointing it out.] I spent a LOT of time on that edit (summary; that I felt very important), and others, looking stuff up. comp.arch (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on with this editor but this... I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page. It's not comp.arch's role as an editor to strike other editor's comments because they disagree. This is bizarre behavior and I asked comp.arch to leave my edits alone. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that you're citing #7 under 3RRNO, specifically the exception about "libelous" material - in terms of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, saying the man's name and noting that he has been charged is not libelous because it is truthful. That being said, I don't feel as though you were warring over that, anyway, just that the specific way you scrubbed his name resulted in very clunky grammar (and at times as-of-then unsourced additions). PriusGod (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, the claimed 3RR came before me reporting to oversight, but it was taken seriously (and the "murder" redirect dropped). I don't feel like the number of reverts in which 24 period is the most important matter (I realize it's a bright line), I'm not going to start counting, people will just need to be specific and I can look into it. BLP policy allows you to be bold when there is a violation, and I just believe I've been moving quickly. In some cases possibly too quickly, and BLP or NOT3RR may not always have applied, as any excuse. comp.arch (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comp.arch struck another editor's comments from the RfC yesterday (Sangdeboeuf's). I have restored and documented it here. This was three days after striking Nemov's comment and being warned about it.

I also believe that comp.arch's comments in this section and the associated edits to the main article are pertinent to this discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there's enough here to warrant some kind of sanction. The editor has been counting votes in that RfC, striking other editor's comments, and removing other editor's comments. It's clear there's a behavioral problem and I had hoped that this discussion would help deter future bad behavior, but apparently it's not happening. Nemov (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to agree. The scale, scope, and contradictory nature of the disruptive edits — removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP, while at the same time persistently inventing POV-pushing derogatory language that violates BLP, without trying to build consensus, breaking 3RR, forcing other editors to create an RfC to respond to the disruptive edits, then flooding the RfC with wall-of-text and I-can't-hear-you type comments, and removing multiple comments of editors who disagree with them, after being warned to stop, all on a politically charged article about an ongoing event — stretch the limit of one's ability to AGF. But regardless of comp.arch's intentions, the disruption simply needs to stop. Combefere ★ Talk 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "removing multiple comments of editors who disagree" is I feel the most serious untrue allegation here. I deleted ONE by accident, and struck out, i.e. overstricking, basically highlighted his comment, a disruptive comment because IT was disrupting the RfC process, while notifying that user. So how is two, multiple? "removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP", was that his name? Please be very specific in all allegations. comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "So how is two, multiple?" I believe this is my cue to disengage. Combefere ★ Talk 07:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I was doing my best to be polite and genuinely did believe at the time that the editor's behavior was simply overbearing and not malicious and warranted only a warning - but a second talk page comment removal, ESPECIALLY an opposing vote on an RfC is frankly beyond the pale. Not to mention that they said on their talk page they were refraining from participating in the conversation, then continued on. I agree with Combefere, AGF is strained here and the conversation needs to be allowed to continue without being interfered with like this. Edit 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC): I've addressed in my comment in the "Discussion" section below that I'm aware the removal was not intentional. If anyone is going to use my statements as part of their rationale for a !vote or an action, please read that comment first, as it affects what I've said about AGF in this situation. PriusGod (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not "been counting votes in that RfC", I explicitly stated it's not a vote, but I did count, yes, the opposition, 7, to show that there was no consensus; and to not show a possibly meaningless number (or some might have argued), in case a tiny minority, I also counted support, and calculated 37% opposing, at that point. comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is some mighty fine hair-splitting. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders [.. and screamed] he would hurt anyone on the train. [..] Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well."[48] so my very first edit was on that. That is going to be the killer's best defence and many other (now also dropped) potentially very interesting details, that I would be adding if I were disrupting/not trying to build consensus. What was, and is, kept in the lead is that a white named man killed a black man, because that's well true (and obvious, but arguably not any reason for anything), while a very WP:NPOV way to summarize in the lead, that way, with none of the reasons that could explain why he (the man with criminal felony history, documented in the main text, assaulting the elderly) got killed. That is why I at least (and others) want his name out of the lead (and in fact from the whole article; also other reasons). The killer is presumed innocent, so I would think no negative info or opinion, should be attached to his name, but at least until the article becomes neutral, his name should be out. In that article "Some are now calling for justice for Neely, who was homeless and struggled with mental illness, and for the person who was initially hailed as a Good Samaritan to be arrested." People revert me on mental issues for the lead, when it's literally there in that news sentence with homeless, which is NOT a synonym, but is a WP:WEASEL word for many for mentally ill; and it's better to just state that. Have I backed off? Yes, me and LoomCreek have a healthy editing disagreement I would think, and LoomCreek's ANI was an overreaction (also that non-good-faith claim). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.

2. Striking, modifying, and deleting other editor's comments.

Asking this editor to modify their behavior isn't working. I was leaning TBAN, but I'm not sure how it would be applied at this time. Given the number of edits that Comp.arch has made on that RfC a temp block would be wise for the editor to get the point. - Nemov (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Comp.arch)

• Support Editor doesn't seem to be learning a lesson and continues to ignore direction. Based on the comment below I'm not sure this is heading in a positive direction. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with @Combefere[49], something is seriously amiss with the editor and I would also support WP:SBAN. Nemov (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I really don't want to spend time defending myself here more, just feel it might be part of the process. I want[ed] to edit; (e.g.) page on, presumed innocent, person, so he has a fair Wikipedia page (it still isn't). And I did, well still do, think the best way for a non-public/non-notable person to have a fair page, is to not have one in his name (well his name in it; before it named him basically in Wikivoice as a murderer), until found guilty (of his non-murder charge), where people are e.g. naming him a person doing lynching, from WP:UNDUE Twitter source. The news shouldn't have named him, but at least they do not include such an opinion, on their pages. For all I know they got his name from Wikipeda not the other way around. I'm thinking of the precedent. How low is the bar on WP: How minor does the charge have to be do add a person's name to WP? comp.arch (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments above and below. Combefere ★ Talk 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of comp.arch doubling down on the bigotry above, I suggest an indefinite SBAN. There is no reason that editors should be expected to put up with this. See WP:HID. At the absolute least, there should be indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness. Combefere ★ Talk 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it's not bigotry when, to explain where I'm coming from in this ANI trial of mine, I point to a police report/WP:RS news source. I thought you said and meant to "disengage" from the ANI, when you admitted your untruth about me. You may have joined in 2021, but SBAN, even temporary, is not called for, when I'm a top-3000 editor; edit more than 99.975% of users, for over 10 years, rarely reverted, and you are the first person to ever accuse me of bigotry/hate in or out of Wikipedia. It feels very uncivil. comp.arch (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would agree with Prius I think a WP:TBAN would be appropriate. I was hoping it was something which could be resolved, which is why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate. Alongside bludgeoning there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see: [50] [51][52]. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see:" I request all look at those three completely good-faith edits (and in fact all my edits of the article, to get non-biased view of my edit history of that page). I am completely in the dark about why you cite [ WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch ] editorial. I added no such words. E.g. what I added (in the parenthesis) "She further labeled the killing (before charges were filed) as a "lynching" (which he later denied with "I’m not a white supremacist" in an interview after becoming a defendant, and stated the case had noting to to with race)". I can see why you moved his response elsewhere in the article, under his name, and I didn't complain at all. To call this "disruptive editing" puts what you state about me very much into doubt, and I'm starting to feel you <CENSORED> me, without knowing me at all. I assumed him defending his name should be close to the libel in the response section, ok, your view is he's not part of the community, but maybe he is? He lives in NY... comp.arch (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You added uncited information in parenthesis. Which were not in the original sources of the rest of the sentence. Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids that type of synthesis in the vast majority of cases, which WP:Editorial covers even if it's not the main focus. It also violated WP:OR through the combination and lack of sourcing. I did not censor I simply made the appropriate correction. Disruptive edits don't have to be in bad faith, they only have to be disruptive, which they were.

  I'm sure your a fine editor for other pages, but here you simply don't listen to consensus and continually have bludgeoned. Wasting people's time and energy in the talk page when it could be spent doing something more useful. Listing your points over and over in slightly different wording. And attacking others personally when they disagree with you (such as did just now in the comment above).

  At this point it's very clear this is not something you can let go and simply don't care its steamrolling over other editors in process. LoomCreek (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've not ever attacked people ("personally"). I'll clarify.

  "why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate." It feels very inappropriate to me as the next move, "we" didn't have "plenty of talk page discussions", I hadn't; started in talk on 22 May 2023 and you started the ANI at on the 17th. I see 5 bullet points at the top of the page here: WP:AN/I (under) "Before posting a complaint about a user on this page" and seemingly you ignored them all, at least some of the points for sure, e.g. 3 points: "Want to skip the drama?", you never talked to me on my Talk page, about any issue, nor tried WP:Dispute resolution (policy): "Disagreements on Wikipedia are normal; editors will frequently disagree with each other, particularly on content decisions."

  I felt with that last comment you made, all three examples you gave were especially bad, so that I felt you were going into in-civil territory. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL: "First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." I did. "Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offence was unintended." Here I must clarify, I'm not claiming you censored me (I'm ok with you dropping minor points, I don't actually want to discuss e.g. the funeral. All my points were WP:V and that one also in WP:RS that I yes seemingly left out citing). What I was censoring out was, "I'm starting to feel you [I censored out words that come to mind, that I think you might feel about me] me," I'm trying to restrain my feelings as much as possible, and not state them, but I see now it's actually considered better to state them. What I feel, especially with SBAN named, is allowed, and stating feelings is not a [WP:]personal attack. This ANI makes me sad. I feel you (people) are taking away my main purpose in life (when I die the only things that live on are my unpaid edits/writing), and people will not even know it's me) and only hobby. I'm not sure I even want to be part of a club that doesn't want me as a member.

  If you're so "sure [I'm] a fine editor for other pages" then you wouldn't support SBAN. See also the other comment, if it influenced you, and my response. comp.arch (talk)

  I'm also not entirely opposed to a WP:SBAN though sockpuppetry and other ban evasions will have to be carefully watched in that case (which to be fair is also pretty true for TBANS). I would support a WP:SBAN, I'm stating it more explicitly to make my position clear. At this point I think the bare minimum is indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness as @Combefere said. LoomCreek (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear this not a simple "disagreement" of opinion between me and comp.arch. Their pushing of derogatory language in the article, and doubling down on those bigotries is harmful & disturbing.

  Per WP:HID I think a WP:SBAN is the most appropriate move. Their ability to neutrally edit at this point is highly doubtful and makes the space unwelcome to other editors. LoomCreek (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Comp.arch)

• I have not answered for all the untruths in the original unexpected ANI. I'm not even sure if I'm expected to answer here. And now for this Proposal from Nemov:

Nobody asked me to change behavior [EDIT: before the ANI, I though would be clear if full sentence read. See rest here:] (one allegation of not acting in good faith, then bam ANI; I assume good faith of all in 10+ years, and others of me until now)?! Is that implicit in ANI? Not sure what TBAN is.

2. No modifying of editor's comments; except that one time when you claimed BLP was a guideline, and I edited it to policy (I stopped even editing other's others typos, such as yours above [EDIT: My point was I would have, help others that way, no longer dare to even touch those]. That was the same edit I struck out your comment to make it obvious to you, and others, by notifying you so that you could simply fix it. I deleted one comment by honest mistake. If we're going to do an RfC (or ANI), bringing up policy then it needs to fair, not lies about it (I didn't claim you were doing that intentionally, but seems disingenuous what you're doing now). I've never participated in an ANI before, in my over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing, let alone mine, so do I need to read those policies too, or get a lawyer to defend, or just abandon Wikipedia?

Your incredible Support comment in an RfC with untruth that I struck out is here. I.e. "WP:BLP guidelines", no, they are polices. You point to an RfC with "No consensus to include for now." and you do not support doing the same, rather ignore that precedent, if you will, which was for a double murder of kids, rather than follow it for the non-murder (i.e. second-degree manslaughter; negligence), then following WP policies is too dogmatic! There's no consensus on including the name, there's actually non-consensus (3% against including by my last count), and also bias in the articlee.g. see here, I would claim I'm not the one with WP:NPOV, others are, and people, not just me, claim that.

1. I've participated in RfC, that was started after ANI (and almost stopped editing the article itself after ANI), there was no RfC or consensus before, none to ignore, I read all edit summaries and in case I'm reverted. Should I read talk pages before anyone reverts me? comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in further discussing your simple content dispute grievances. You're still justifying your behavioral problems which only strengthens the case for sanctions. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed remarks such as I stopped even editing other's [sic] typos, such as yours above (emphasis mine) are very transparently bitter and serve no purpose other than to antagonize or insult other editors. This falls especially flat when that comment, pointing out the typos of others, has a typo in it. Someone proud of their over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing should be aware how big of a no-no it is to modify another's talk page posts without permission. Without wanting to pick apart everything in this comment, I'd caution you that between your attitude and trying to get out of this squeaky-clean by only admitting the bare minimum fault, you're unlikely to get you the result you want. It's my belief that if you want to continue to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in the ways and places you want to, you would benefit greatly from a softened attitude and some humility. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit all of my faults here, if that's the point of the trial here. I want the trial to be fair, people not misrepresenting what I've actually done. WP:NOT3RR also has other exceptions, e.g. for "bias". I believed I was doing a good job editing the article until LoomCreek stated he no longer believed in my good faith (in an edit summary). Have I done a single edit on the actual page since then, he (or others) disagree with? He followed up straight away with ANI. I believed he did that in good faith (and I thanked him for it), and I still believe he did that that. But I didn't see him bring up a point that is valid (at that time), me breaking a policy; or if he thinks so, which wasn't allowed by exception, so he was simply mistaken. I believe I've always backed down on editing the page. For the Talk page, have I bean obsessive, YES! This ANI didn't help with that. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody asked me to change behavior" – I did, on 5/17. Nemov did, on 5/18. LoomCreek did on 5/18. PriusGod did on 5/18. A.B. did on 5/19.

After all of these requests to change your behavior, you have continued to overwhelm the talk page with walls of text full of misapplied links to wiki policies, and hyperbolic misrepresentations of other editors' comments. 72.14.126.22 had to ask you to drop the stick again today. Combefere ★ Talk 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to believe that it was an honest mistake to remove the other editor's talk page comment, but comp.arch, if you, a veteran editor with a decade's worth of experience and good contributions to the project, are getting so worked up that you end up accidentally deleting people's comments in an RfC, I don't think it is healthy for you to continue to be a part of this discussion. You've cited enough policy and made enough arguments for anyone who comes to the RfC to be convinced, if they ever will be. Do remember that much of (I am aware that that there some cut-and-dry rules) WP policy is not set in stone and not to be obeyed as law, and that the specific content policy that is in dispute at this article has a long history of being hotly debated and recognized as ambiguously written from both people who want it to be stricter and those who want it to be more lenient. PriusGod (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it might not be healthy (for my mental health), to discuss at talk, and well here. I'm thinking of taking a 2-3 week break from that article, and would request that nothing is decided on ANI, while I'm also away from this ANI. [I still feel I need to point out untruths about me here, at least if blatant/relevant.] comp.arch (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comp.arch, let me just say I think this is a beneficial idea. In many underlying substantive ways, I actually agree with you. But where I differ is that I believe many (if not most!) decisions on Wikipedia are not susceptible to a black-and-white, all-or-nothing analysis. Policies certainly exist, but there will always be differences of opinion on how they should be applied, and reasonable minds can differ in good faith. I try to always be clear about my opinions, but I find myself in the minority plenty, and that's okay. I have a certain level of faith that, over time, Wikipedia gets things close to right. That said, all the best to you and a Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I have opened a section on this page because User:MaranoFan has refused to retract lies they wrote about me and is falsely accusing me of acting in bad faith. I apologize for the length, but I need to clear my name.

23:19, May 14, 2023 MaranoFan opens Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1.

00:42, May 15, 2023 As I was on WP:FAC at the exact same minute adding comments at 23:19, May 14, 2023 to a different review, I noticed MaranoFan's nomination and made comments. (I wasn't stalking their edit history looking for their next nomination and how I could "derail" it). At the end of the review, I wrote that "Overall I wish the nomination was more prepared. For example, MOS:CONFORMTITLE has been brought up by three different reviewers in four of the nominator's last seven FACs, and yet it is mostly ignored again. I would have expected it to be addressed before nominating at this point." Having reviewed some of MaranoFan's previous nominations, I found it a bit odd for an experienced editor to nominate multiple articles with the same issues and fail to prepare future nominations based on previous feedback. Reviewers have limited time, and pointing out the same things every other nomination is frustrating. I could have written "oppose", but in good faith did not as I believed most of the comments could be addressed quickly.

07:31, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the comments.

09:59, May 15, 2023 I add two follow-ups.

15:47, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the follow-ups.

04:35, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 : "the Spotify/Apple Music refs do not seem to confirm to MOS:CONFORMTITLE. This should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there, lol."

06:46, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page: "Since your initial opposition to my nomination was strongly worded, I think it would be good if it was explicitly indicated in the form of a !vote that you are satisfied with the changes, so as to not turn away prospective reviewers. Thank you in advance."

To write on a reviewer's talk page asking them to !vote less than 36 hours after the review began is bizarre. I was about to support, but being basically guilted into making a vote offended me. There was never any indication that I wouldn't support, and I was mostly off Wikipedia at the time, so I really don't understand why MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page when the review was less than two days old and the nomination was less than two days old. It's not like my temporary lack of a !vote was "holding up" promotion. Again, there wasn't even an "oppose" to strike, and yet MaranoFan described my original comments as "opposition". I just hadn't written "support" yet because I hadn't come back to the FAC and checked if my follow-up comments were addressed. For that, MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page? No other editor has ever done that. This felt very over the top and points to their false belief that I have an agenda against them. I have never even opposed any of their past nominations, so I don't understand where their anxiety is coming from.

16:38, May 16, 2023 I had been tracking progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 and planned on making comments as I had frequented many of that nominator's projects before (Again, not "stalking" MaranoFan's edit history). But combined with their comment there and the—in my opinion ridiculous—request on my talk page, I felt disrespected and wrote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process." Given that the MOS:CONFORMTITLE "moan" comment came less than 24 hours after I noted MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues on their FAC, I logically inferred that MaranoFan was referring to my comments. I took that as a slight because I am simply reviewing to the WP:FACR criteria, which includes following the MOS. I expect others to have respect for the process and not consider noting MOS issues a "moan". Sorry if that sounds corny, but when I spend an hour reviewing an article, I expect a little respect for the process.

16:59, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan moves the entire review to the FAC talk page, writing in the edit summary: "Moved to talk to reduce page loading time as user has expressed wish to withdraw from the review process." Nowhere did I ever "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". In fact, I said "Everything has been addressed", indicating that the review was complete, not that I withdrew. Just because there isn't a "support" vote doesn't mean the reviewer "withdrew" the review. MaranoFan blatantly lied that I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". I never said that explicitly nor implicitly. They moved the review to the talk page under false pretenses.

This is not the first time MaranoFan has lied that I have withdrawn from reviews of their FACs. 16:18, November 8, 2022 they accused me of "Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination". In fact, I had not come back to it (for one day... the horror) because they never indicated that my follow-up comment at 19:56, November 7, 2022 was addressed. In good faith, I then voted to support promotion and passed the source review after reviewing the nominated article's revision history. But nominators are supposed to indicate when changes have been made; it's not the reviewers job to go into the edit history for every comment and see what happened. Through their multiple lies about my "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process" and "abandoning completed source and prose reviews", MaranoFan has maligned my reputation at WP:FAC. They are implying that I randomly withdraw from reviews in bad faith, which is untrue. Their consistent language of "abandoning" and "withdraw" when I don't provide a !vote indicates that they fundamentally do not understand the WP:FAC review process. Nominations are not entitled to a !vote just because prose comments are addressed.

05:27, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on FAC coordinator Gog the Mild's talk page, stating: "Hi, Gog! I wanted to ask if you could review my new FAC. I liked some of your recent reviews, and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments." This is another lie and aspersion that I set out to ruin their nomination. They have a, quite frankly, worrying preconceived notion that I am out to "get them" and that my comments on their FAC are there to intentionally "derail it" because I am apparently in a Four Award rivalry with them and thus don't want it to pass. This is just so absurd. I have one Four Award, which I self-nominated two years after I was eligible (I would actually have two, but chose not to do a DYK for the other one). MaranoFan is casting baseless aspersions. Where is the evidence I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards" and that that influenced my review? They are apparently irked that I recently created and nominated Clown (Mariah Carey song) for DYK and GA (which they indicated they would review). MaranoFan is reading into things that are not there and are trying to create drama where none exists.

08:01, May 17, 2023 Gog the Mild comments on the FAC talk page.

08:32, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan replies, implying that I stalked them.

11:59, May 17, 2023 I reply, asking MaranoFan to retract their lies and aspersions about my edits and intentions.

13:29, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan responds.

14:47, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page, saying I should defer to their talk page for comments.

14:50, May 17, 2023 I strike the comments implying a personal attack on me from the FAC review.

14:49, May 17, 2023 I indicate this on MaranoFan's talk page and ask that they reciprocate by retracting their lie about my purported withdrawal from the review and baseless aspersions about why I reviewed the FAC to begin with.

16:42, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan refuses and says that my actions "blatantly indicates malicious intent".

MaranoFan has put words in my mouth and refused to retract when given multiple chances, even when I did the same for them by striking certain comments. They have cast bizarre aspersions about me derailing their FAC nomination to win a Four Award competition to which I have no knowledge of. They seem to have preconceived notions that I continuously act in bad faith toward them as part of some secret agenda, which I find disturbing. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user was not active on this peer review before my comments, and it is considered "too large to display" on WP:PR, there is almost no way they stumbled upon it through anything except going through my contributions. This comment was based on a misunderstanding, I just did not bother striking it since it was made on this user's own talk page. It, under no circumstances, "maligned [their] reputation at WP:FAC", as no one except them saw it. Heartfox, meanwhile, has pursued their outrageous aspersion based on a lie (which explicitly maligns my respect for the FAC process, and I have documented in the section below), at public pages like my nomination at FAC, which is currently transcluded right near the top of WP:FACGO and is amplified to the whole FAC community (pageviews: 312, 198). Pretending that this minimal amount of striking changes anything is ridiculous, since it is still clearly a bad faith comment. Yes, I have taken up a review of their current GAN because I wanted to thank them for their participation on my last few FACs. I took that up in good faith before they cast their aspersion on my nomination, not sure how that means I am "irked"... The above paragraph is just a bunch of random things thrown together to distract from their bad faith comment at my FAC, which they are fighting desperately to get restored for visibility at the main FAC page.--NØ 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions and bullying from User:Heartfox

Filing report I had been drafting as a subsection.

User:Heartfox produced a review for an article, slightly over an hour after I nominated it at FAC, which was unusually pessimistically worded and seemed off right away. Within the one hour of me having nominated it, they had self-admittedly gone through seven of my prior successful FACs looking for something that could be used to call my current FAC underprepared, which is an unusual amount of dedication as well. I addressed their decently lengthy review within a few hours. At this point, the nomination was going well and attracted a second review which was more positive. A while later, Heartfox was back and admitted their whole review had been addressed, but instead of supporting the nomination, they picked out a bit from a completely different peer review I had conducted recently (which did not involve or mention them whatsoever), and cast a bad faith WP:ASPERSION that would negatively impact future reviewer participation, that read: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process.". Since this included an admission that 100% of their comments had been addressed, and that they would refuse to further participate by indicating a !vote, I moved it to the talk page, something I had seen coords do before and that seemed relatively uncontroversial to me. They are now campaigning to get the aspersions restored on the main review page, despite it being pointed out again and again that my comment was not about them. They have now struck two words in their comment but it is still worded in a way which discourages reviewer participation on my nomination. They are now leaving passive aggressive messages on my talk page, and are still stalking my contributions and quoting comments I made on other users' talk pages. They have stated a bunch of times that all of their comments have been addressed, but they refuse to support my nomination which I think is indicative of their intentions. I am sorry but this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass me, which they concocted within minutes of me nominating this article. This user is an FAC frequenter, and I will not feel safe ever nominating another article if nothing is done about it. I apologize for bringing this to ANI but I have put in blood, sweat and tears developing my reputation at FAC over the years, and I think seeking an IBAN with this user to preserve it is worth it.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to add, Heartfox seems to have ran to ANI because I had indicated I will start a discussion about them here if their bullying continues. This seems like an effort to beat me in time to add some sort of credibility to their defense. And by bringing up some interaction between us from November 2022, that I had long forgotten about, they seem to have confirmed they were holding a grudge against me during their initial review itself. Given that they have now started a discussion to embarrass me here, after attempting this on my review page and by pinging FAC coords on its talk page multiple times (and now here), I am now formally seeking an IBAN as this has become too much to deal with.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. @Heartfox: Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting crazy. MaranoFan is mad that I had the audacity to refer to their previous nominations and how they are wasting reviewers' time with the same issues. I was involved in those past FACs and was one of the previous reviewers; of course bringing up previous nominations is relevant. I simply did basic research to get the exact number so as to not cast aspersions with no evidence, as MaranoFan has done repeatedly over the past few days. They continue to feel entitled to a support !vote and that its absence somehow indicates I had malicious intent going into the review and "concocted" a plan to embarrass them. MaranoFan has still not retracted the lies they wrote about my edits and intentions, and are now casting new aspersions. An IBAN because this user cannot take basic criticism, which, again, did not even involve an "oppose", seems like an attempt to evade any criticism of their FACs. Heartfox (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "evading any criticism of their FACs", all content-related comments at my FAC were met constructively and addressed. The last five paragraphs of essays written on my FAC have involved absolutely nothing related to the article in question. I am not sure why this user came to ANI if they are not seeking an IBAN. Seems to confirm that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING to embarrass me on different pages and to get someone to validate their hatred for me. Everyone has not died. There are other people who can raise content-related issues on my future FACs. The fact that they are writing essays upon essays about how bad I am yet oppose an IBAN absolutely foreshadows such disruption repeating on my future projects. They had previously stated they would avoid me in the future, but they sought drama at another one of my nominations. This is a repeat habit with this user and they seem to enjoy publically bullying others to apologize. It is also worth noting they started an ANI discussion about me a few hours after I explicitly asked to be left alone. I am not sure how they want me to "retract" something I said in an edit summary... This blatant WP:ASPERSION intended to character-assasinate me to prospective reviewers is disruptive, it is not related to improvement of the article in question. I would be fine if they just did not support, but they left a comment to intentionally dissuade others from reviewing my FAC. If they had a problem with my comments at another PR it should have been brought to my talk page.--NØ 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you recommend? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That they be blocked for incivility unless they retract/strike their lie about my purported "wish to withdraw from the review process", their aspersion that I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards", their aspersion that I am "still stalking [their] contributions", their aspersion that "this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass [them], which [I] concocted", their aspersion that I am "bullying" them, and their aspersion that I "ran to ANI" because MaranoFan had indicated they might do so (As I said at the top, I did so because they refused to retract lies after being given multiple opportunities). I have now struck the entire "moan" comment. Heartfox (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will leave this to an admin to make a decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking seems random. FAC pages get a lot of views so I want the offtopic comment removed entirely. Once that's done, I am ready to hear what the other user wants me to delete.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not random, I was following WP:RUC. Nonetheless, I have removed the stricken text per your request. Heartfox (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Is this an improvement? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR, thank you so much for following this so closely and talking to me respectfully. I have never needed this more than in the past two days. Anyways, I have the same position about the IBAN.--NØ 20:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Marano. I know from experience how stressful the site can be at times, so I have been trying to counteract that for others. One question: Do you still support an IBAN? Your comment on that was a bit ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is a necessary step to prevent disruption going forward in my opinion. I am firm on that stand. The fact that I have been badmouthed as much as I have been over here but a voluntary IBAN has been refused makes me seriously question what's in store for the future. I haven't slept at all since this discussion erupted, and I doubt anybody here wants a repeat of this. A long-term solution like an IBAN is necessary. This section is getting lengthy so I'll leave the discussion to third parties now.--NØ 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan

Starting a separate section to formally propose an IBAN, since above sections are too swarmed by long comments. The issues go further than just a few comments needing to be struck and comments from back in November 2022 have also been highlighted, indicating there are recurring problems with our interactions which are not bound to improve in the future. Voluntary IBAN has been rejected by the other user.

• Support IBAN as proposer.--NØ 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for now. This seems warranted, and it does not look like the situation will improve, as they do not seem to be able to come to a compromise. However, the IBAN should exclude this ANI thread. All other ANI threads would be included, just not this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Temporarily struck because the situation may be improving. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As there has been no visible progress since I struck my comment, I am restoring it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have supported every FAC MaranoFan has nominated that I made a review for, and was about to for the most recent one until they harassed me at my talk page. If MaranoFan does not want a frequent support vote at their FACs, that's fine with me. They are the one who always comes to my talk page finding something wrong with my reviews. I really do not think about them as much they think I do. Why would I spent an hour reviewing in order to embarrass them. It's because I think the article has merit, not because I have some grudge against them. If I didn't like them I wouldn't have reviewed in the first place -_- They continue to try and drag me into their own muck. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems intractable at this point. --Jayron32 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this proposal is successful, we will need to G6 this. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I was uncertain about participating in this discussion. I have immense respect for both of these editors. It is a shame to see things between them go into this direction. I believe this is the best solution for this issue. I support MaranoFan's proposal for a two-sided IBAN. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Holy mother of pointless pettiness, did you two leap-frog eachother in making mountains of molehills, until an extremely minor disagreement about etiquette became a grudge match of wills. Even so, I have over the years become an extreme skeptic about the utility and wisdom of IBANs, believing that they are usually unnecessary and invite more problems than they solve, shifting responsibility from the users under the sanction to comport with basic behavioral guidelines and instead putting the community in the role of having to referee the bounds of their interactions. So I only support interaction bans where a fair number of criteria are met, and if it makes sense in the context of the volunteer workspace the two editors share. Here, I think it makes sense based on the context and nature of the underlying dispute, the distance between the two editors in coming to a meeting of the minds (as well some degree of intractability from both on just dropping the matter outright), the lack of other obvious community actions that can be taken under these circumstances, the impact of the IBAN upon each party (including the need of workarounds required to maintain the ban), and all other relevant factors.

Now, obviously MaranoFan has no objection to the IBAN. And HeartFox, while not all the blame for amping this situation up can be laid at your feet, I have to tell you that I view the filing here at ANI to have been excessive and unnecessary (if not outright histrionic) in the circumstances, so I'm inclined to say you're just going to have to live with this suboptimal outcome. I'm not really sure what heavier and unilateral sanction for MF you saw us handing out here on account of this whole tempest in a teapot, but I reluctantly have to agree that in this case the IBAN seems to be the only formal action that fits the disruption, such as it is. Both of you walking away voluntarily from this showdown over minor perceived slights to your honesty and reputation would have been better for everyone, but here we are. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the comment MaranoFan felt was unfair, struck it more upon their request, and removed it entirely upon their request. They continue to do no such thing for their aspersions toward me, including lying about my actions (that I abandon FAC reviews in bad faith), lying about my intentions (They went to an FAC coordinator's talk page and said I concocted a plot to ruin their FAC because I want more Four Awards than them). They say I stalk them and have personal "hatred" for them. I do not consider accusing someone of hatred, stalking, and malicious intent "minor" slights. Why would I voluntarily allow myself to be maligned like this? I do not regret coming to ANI at all. Heartfox (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've reviewed every single page and diff you supplied above to support the conclusion you are being unduely maligned, and what I see is two editors who both failed to AGF at every possible checkpoint, and showed absolutely no restraint necessary to de-escalate at each point that one of you did take offense and decided you were being misrepresented. That's honestly my take on the way both of you comported yourselves here. And the statements that were made about you are so far below the threshold for a WP:PA that would benefit from community attention that I can't view your filing here as anything but an extremely poor use of community time.

But even if we were to credit you as the more aggrieved party here, and even if we agreed that you had done more to try to avoid aggravating the disagreement prior to bringing this to ANI, have you considered this tactic: just ignoring the comments? If nothing else, try to have some faith in your fellow editors here: we see hyperbolic complaints about being hounded, hurt feelings, needless personalization of routine actions, and the silly assumption of malevolent motives all the time here: no experienced community member takes these claims seriously without a substantial demonstration of real evidence of harassment. No one was going to walk away from seeing those comments on a random FAC and think, "Oh, that HeartFox person is clearly a right wanker, I'm going to pass word along!"

The stakes here were so incredibly low, and you could (and should) have just walked away at any number of points, but instead the two of you had to play nothing-accusation chicken until you brought the matter here. Seriously a very, very silly dispute over essentially nothing, and I wish the result had just been a trout for both of you. But each additional comment from either of you makes it clear you still cannot just back away from this nonsense. So I guess an IBAN it is. Believe me, not my first choice, but your mutual display of thin skin seems to make it inevitable at this point, so we might as well implement the ban to stem the waste of community output on this inanity. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Snow Rise. Both editors had the chance to walk away and show their class, but instead actively sought out this lame grudge match. A pretty shabby episode in their histories, it must be said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Iban because it is obviously needed based on the above. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ErnestKrause started a review at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 on May 10. Rather than reviewing the article, ErnestKrause objected to the fact that each individual Federalist paper has its own article, and then complained about the main Federalist Papers article. ErnestKrause then proceeded to make this absurd comment objecting to the nominator changing the assessment for the article from start to B after massively improving it, inventing fake policy that says this is strictly forbidden, saying I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.

In a clearly retaliatory act for the nominator refusing to bow to his spurious demands unrelated to Federalist No. 2, ErnestKrause immediately quickfailed Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1 with a copy-paste message, full of absurdities. According to ErnestKrause, two articles over 1,000 words long and plentiful citations are still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. Both quickfails concluded with this statement, which I don't even need to explain the issues with: When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed.

When challenged at WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [53] [54] which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie [55]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [56] that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ErnestKrause? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about Ernest's claim that The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves.

It's true that any editor who has not contributed significantly to an article is welcome to review it for GA (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles. I and others have spent years reassuring editors that they really are trusted to rate all the way from Stub-class to B-class all by themselves, and it's really disheartening to have someone actively spreading misinformation and then basically punishing an editor who did the right thing. So just to make sure this is clear: Thebiguglyalien, you are allowed to assess any article you want, up through and including B-class, you are encouraged to assess articles that you have improved, and if you ever run into a dispute about this again, then the official guideline on Wikipedia:Content assessment says it's okay for you to assess articles that you improve, and if that's not sufficient proof, then there's usually someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council who will be willing to intervene (or leave a note on my own talk page, and I will). This kind of making up fake rules really has to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause disruptive at WT:GAN and elsewhere

 I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, having been persistently disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis) who initially replied.

ErnestKrause posted a long response to that section, arguing that he had acted with the agreement and consent of two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia. The "agreement" from Z1720 consisted of absolutely nothing at all, a fact which Z1720 pointed out in this lengthy and precise response—every single mention of Z1720 in ErnestKrause's response was in fact either some sort of misrepresentation or an outright fabrication. The "agreement" from Cecropia consists solely of (and no, I am not joking) an example table outlined by that user on 10 Jun 2004. Shortly afterwards, Mr rnddude posted a comment explaining how ErnestKrause has done this before at this discussion.

In both of his responses in the above-linked section, ErnestKrause has declined to address any of the issues other editors have brought up—or indeed reply at all on his talk page, in a classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Instead, he has persisted in accusing others of bad faith (for example: "The difficulty remains that BigAlien has fully refused to discuss this issue", "I'm conscious of the fact that there of six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances", etc.) and showing absolutely no understanding of basic WP:CONSENSUS. I was reluctant to come here, but the constant stonewalling and disruptiveness has forced my hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

 Remark: I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reports—Alalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a GAN ban, given his previous good work and lack of serious problems in that area. Also, it's possible that some of his inaccurate statements, e.g. claiming that Z1720 agreed with him on the Federalist issue, are caused by honest misunderstandings. I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's fine that he tried to invent fake policy and has yet to admit doing so was wrong? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invention would suggest a deliberate act... he may simply have wrongly assumed that the prohibition against an editor elevating their own work to GA status also applied to B-class. He hasn't explained his reasoning so far. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, isn't it? He refuses to explain what he was thinking or made any assurances it won't happen in the future, instead disappearing. I did not support a topic ban until 3 days had passed with EK refusing to engage further here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a simple "Whoops, my bad" could have gone a long way; perhaps still could, although I think by now more might be needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really can't follow Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs), although I understand and to some degree sympathize with their position. Ernest Krause has a good track record, up to this point. His mishandled this situation, badly, and then disappeared without admitting fault (or retracting various accusations) when everyone disagreed with him. It's okay to be wrong, and it ought to be okay to admit when you've made a mistake. Anyone who holds that admission against you isn't thinking of the project's best interests. I won't oppose a topic ban from the Good Article process, but I think it's a little strong. I do think Ernest Krause ought to receive the equivalent of a yellow card: you made a mistake, you're on notice that you handled this poorly, and if this comes up again something will actually be done about it (topic ban or what have you). Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If a warning will achieve consensus, I'll support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this as well. I agree Ernest Krause has been uncooperative since the matter was brought up, but would like him to have a chance to show through his actions that he gets it. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruptive editing even after the user caught a 31 hour block last month. Most egregious example is that there was an RfCRM, which was closed with a consensus that Mertens should redirect to Mertens (surname), and that less than 10 days after the closure, the user went ahead and unilaterally redirected to Dries Mertens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC), edited voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• He certainly violates in some dose WP:CIR, but ErceÇamurOfficial did do the right thing after the RM closure. Not a good example. J947 † ^edits 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I make no comments about ErceÇamurOfficial's previous editing but in this case (the requested move discussion and subsequent pagemove) consensus was that Dries Mertens was the primary topic for "Mertens", hence why the surname page was moved to include the disambiguator. Ridiculous to take this to ANI. A7V2 (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The close states: The result of the move request was: moved to Mertens (surname)..

  The RM was closed on April 25, and on the same day @MaterialWorks completed the move per consensus.

  Then, on May 5, ErceÇamurOfficial redirected Mertens to Dries Mertens. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading a different discussion, there is no consensus there to redirect to Dries Mertens, the close doesn't say anything about doing so, and the closer has made clear at RFD that this wasn't what their close was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested Then the closer must not be familiar with policy, see WP:MISPLACED. While it's true there was no explicit mention of changing the target of Mertens, the nom's stated reason for wanting to move Mertens (the old dab page) was that they believed Dries Mertens was the primary topic. Read what the !voters wrote also. Whether that RM should be overturned is irrelevant to this discussion since ErceÇamurOfficial was simply implementing the logical result of the close, since you cannot have a base name redirect to what is effectively a disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the votes before makingy comment, there is no consensus to redirect to Dries Mertens. However you right that runs foul of WP:MISPLACED, so the current redirect is against consensus and the consensus is against policy. I've struck my vote at RFD, I think your suggest of a new RM is likely the best course. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, looking at the RfD discussion it looks like the closer has realised changed their view. But really what this comes down to is even if there wasn't an explicit consensus to change the target of Mertens, it certainly wasn't a behavioural issue to change the target unilaterally, even if it was not in line with consensus (which I think it was anyway). A7V2 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since their last block expired, I've been checking up on them once in a while. It does seem like this user has learned from the last ANI discussion, as they've stopped nominating RFDs entirely, though I do still have some concerns. Their requested move discussions usually end with a Not moved rationale usually because they do not provide evidence for why the article should be moved, thus, wasting editors' time (e.g. here, here, and here). They often add unsourced content into WP:BLP articles (e.g. here, here, and here). Despite these issues, I do not think that this user should be blocked nor should this been taken to ANI. Instead, I think editors should've given them more warnings, as looking in their talk page, I see that only 3 warnings have been issued in the past month when, in my opinion, there should be more. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user:PlanespotterA320 and their sock user:RespectCE created lots of hoaxes about Russians and Ukrainians, previous discussion is on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#PlanespotterA320_/_User:RespectCE, all the articles created by user:RespectCE got deleted.
I'm now checking on PlanespotterA320's article recently, some of articles were mainly created and edited by them but I didn't have the competence to read Russian, does anyone want to help us do some fact checks?
FYI, PlanespotterA320's articles. -Lemonaka‎ 19:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Planespotter saying she had created hoaxes as part of some very confusing gambits shortly before and after her global ban, but I don't recall anyone ever confirming that, and generally her content work was fine. Is there an instance you can point to where she was found to have created hoaxes? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair a lot of her edits were to Soviet aviation topics so obscure that its very hard to vet. Obscure old hard copy foreign language sources are hard to get even for the most committed fact checkers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but like, is there a reason to think she was hoaxing, other than her saying so as part of an explicit bid to get a few articles deleted after she was told they wouldn't be G7'd? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always suspected her of creating citations through citing user generated or limited access aviation and military history sites in Russian that she also edited, its not the same sort of hoaxing per say but I will go on the record as saying that I don't think we're to the bottom of the well yet in terms of discovering disruptive behavior. In particular I would wager a guess that she is part of the warheroes.ru [[61]] project. An edit summary search [62] goes over 500, I don't know how to search individual edits to see how many times it was used as a source by them. This is of course all speculation based on gut feeling and circumstantial evidence, I don't have off the top of my head anything which I believe could satisfy you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not demanding a smoking gun by any means, just making sure we're not wasting our time based only on some "12D chess"-type statements Planespotter made as the walls were closing in. What you're saying seems like a reasonable line of inquiry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tamzin, I really don't know whether Planespotter's words are right or wrong, she told enough lies and I really don't know their articles are hoaxes, they are telling another lie or just something with poor reference. -Lemonaka‎ 23:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this article as an example, Nazim_Osmanov, first source cannot be checked anymore and it's from vk.com, a user generated site. Another source is a book without any ISBN and I don't know how to find the book at all. -Lemonaka‎ 23:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @Horse Eye's Back as an update and a follow up to this request, I've created a list for checking. User:Lemonaka/Factcheck. Feel free to make any notes if someone is willing to check. -Lemonaka‎ 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thewriter006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting assistance explaining to User:Thewriter006 civility norms. See the discussion here. I have also browsed their recent contributions and they appear out of the norm. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment on his talk page isn't going to draw a sanction. You will have to link much better examples if you expect action on a civility claim. There is a difference in expressing one's opinion crudely, and attacking other editors. Nothing to see on that talk page, and I'm not likely to dig up a bunch of diffs, which is your job if you are making a claim against someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the discussion and the two linked edit summaries, and they're both BLP violations. He also made a BLP violation on Talk:World Chess Championship 2021, today, which was reverted: [63]. @Thewriter006: you need to stop editing and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons very carefully before saying anything else about Magnus Carlsen. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user clearly has maturity issues, and does not appear to understand the purpose of wikipedia. Their user page clearly shows they are treating it like a social media site. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR are applicable. They mostly edit talk pages, but these edits include a lot of problematic and BLP-violating content. If they want to keep on editing they'd better read and absorb WP:NOT and WP:BLP, fast. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the user CTOP alert for BLP. --Stylez995 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I don't think that is going to be very effective. An admin needs to take him aside and warn him about what wikipedia is and isn't for. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of their edits ever indicated that they know what Wikipedia is for? 50.234.234.35 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Muzemberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuydeBerg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Muzemberg and GuydeBerg have been blocked in WP:FR for sockpuppeting on subjects related to the ECLJ [64]. It appears that they are also active on WP:EN and that GuydeBerg is actively modifying and creating pages in order to advertise for the so-called ECLJ report on the ECHR. I believe those two accounts should also be blocked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durifon (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one edit on the french wiki, a translation of a page I made. Being blocked there is a surprise, as no warning of any sort was issued to hear any sort of defense. This had nothing to do with a fair process.

As far as i know, there is no issues with working on a particular subject. So yes, many of my edit were related to the report you mention since i read it and found it worth mentionning, but you can observe that they are also dedicated to provide others informations about the different judges.

So rather than quickly blocking an account, I suggest review of the edits and a polite discusion, which should be the first step in a disagreement. For instance, discussing the "so-called" appelation on a report that is cited on different sources across Europe.

Thank for your attention. GuydeBerg (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 edits for GuydeBerg in WP:FR [65]. Not just one. And you are sockpupetting with Muzemberg. Durifon (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all on the same page, that is why i counted it as one. and no, i'm not the same person. GuydeBerg (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While GuydeBerg is obviously recently active, Muzemberg has not edited here in three weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more appropriate for WP:SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single person agency operating on Upwork. They claim to have been editing Wikipedia for > 10 years and from their job history they have created or edited 450 articles. These are some accounts that I have managed to link to them so far:

• ResearchedEditor100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked by Salvio giuliano in January as a UPE/CU block)
• SoftHusky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunshine1287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RomiPatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PowerUpMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MontDuo12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)

They are clearly not complying with WP:PAID and it is highly likely as the SPI confirms, they have been blocked many times previously. I propose that they are community banned, which, while largely symbolic, could also be reported to Upwork who sometimes remove listings if they can be shown definitively to be in violations of another site's ToU. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bbb23: are these related to any known existing accounts (such as wikiexperts or orangemoody)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b18f:9f09:5c6e:a04d:fc1c:278e (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not those ones no, but look at the SPI. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence here that can be reviewed? I get some of them, but I don't see how some of these accounts could be connected to that Upwork account. :Also, if you suspect that they are the same person, wouldn't WP:SPI be better? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: I have sent some to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org earlier today, but it involved various detective work which isn't really necessary to share here publicly. They'll take care of any blocks as they see fit, but can't ban an organisation - this is the only venue for that. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am User:Sunshine1287. As you can see on my user page, I have declared a conflict of interest: “I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.” I am in-fact, the co-founder of this business and would be happy to verify my identity privately. The only thing I did with my account is create a draft for QOR360 and submitted it to the Articles for Creation queue, where an editor reviewed it and published it. I disclosed my conflict of interest on the Talk page of the draft, but you can no longer see the page because User:Smartse moved the published page to Draft today, then somehow managed to delete the Draft. So there’s no record. But you can see on my user contribution history through, this note: (“Created page with 'I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sunshine1287 and you can see on user Talk page that is was accepted at Articles for Creation by an editor User: Cabrils

@QuicoleJR: Aren’t pages supposed to be discussed for deletion by multiple editors when they’ve been approved at Articles for Creation rather than unilaterally deleted by one person? I don’t know if User:Smartse deleted the page because they don’t think it’s notable or just because they think it’s part of this web of undisclosed paid editing accounts. Can someone please rescue the page and re-publish it? Then if User:Smartse or someone else wants to challenge whether it is notable, they can start a discussion. Also, FYI,User:Smartse didn’t leave the required notice, referenced in the box above, on my user Talk page about this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunshine1287 Thanks.

I’m not heavily involved in the MOS:CAPS discussion for sports pages, but I ran into this editor a few months ago attempting to make capitalization changes to baseball articles. This isn’t a topic I feel strongly about and on merits Dicklyon may even be correct. The issue is Dicklyon’s WP:BATTLEGROUND edits on this topic. Others can speak more specifically, but capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. In the current Hockey RfC, Dicklyon asked for a WP:SNOW close after four days when there was still ongoing discussions and even did a close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[66] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, capitalization is a topic about which I have strong feelings, and yes I asked for a snow close of that RFC, and yes I drafted a self-report (aiming for AN, not ANI, since there's no ongoing activity of relevance). Just waiting for that RFC to close. If the decision is to grant a hockey-specific exception to MOS:CAPS, I'll chalk that up as a loss; but it looks to me like that idea has been roundly rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the Hockey RfC and I'm not seeing a problem that requires intervention, administrative or otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov: This ping of yours is very non-neutral canvassing. If you'd ping the rest of the participants in that RFC, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were participants in the Project that were discussing bringing an ANI case who have a longer history on this topic. If you wish I can alert the entire project. That's within the guidelines. You pinged several of us with that draft. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH; it’s only natural that Nemov pinged those of us frequently involved in the project and as a result having to frequently deal with your overzealousness. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We bar canvassing for the precise reason that it tends to be effective, and making consensus-based discussions a numbers game clouds the issue. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS needs to be removed permanently. It's clearly intended as soft canvassing. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, it's a neutral centralized listing for everyone (i.e. a noticeboard) of discussions involving the site-wide guideline in question, and it serves the excellent purpose of countering in-wikiproject groupthink that in previous times was abused to thwart guidelines applying to particular topics, sometimes for years at a time and to great deals of WP:DRAMA which we now largely avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Nemov seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Dicklyon, in my experience, displays just the right temperament to shepherd through changes to capping in line with our style guides. He has long experience in the area, and approaches it professionally. This thread is entirely unnecessary and a waste of admins' time. Tony (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. And: Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. And: I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. ... De[c]apitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. And: It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight whenever the topic of capitalization — capitalization, for God's sake — comes up, consistently demeaning the opinions of people who care about the actual subject at hand, one subject after another, for years, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. Saying that it's acceptable to argue "for a codified exception" on a MOS Talk page rather than make a case at an article's Talk page is petty wiki-lawyering. Dismissing others' concerns as "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" histrionics while failing to consider the beam in one's own eye is... oh, what's the point? XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Whenever the topic of capitalization...comes up" simply is not what happens. Only a vanishingly small number of editors go into this "I'm gonna fight until I feel demoralized" mode, and they're almost entirely confined to sports and a handful of other topics that attract an obsessive fandom. If everyone who didn't get their way in some discussion or other could claim they were "demeaned" and turn it into another "pillory my evil enemy again and again until I finally get them censored" ANI, then WP would have imploded the month it began. PS: You're misunderstanding my point. I'll rephrase it: If editors from some topical wikiproject are tired of RMs that raise the same sort of capitalization issue, enough to go on yet another ANI witch-hunt, then they should seek a topical exception in the guideline and see if consensus agrees with them (e.g. notice how we have codified exceptions like capitalizing the names of standard chess openings, etc.). Of course I don't mean that RM should not be used in the first place; 99.9% of these kinds of questions are settled at RM. This "death to Dicklyon" shtick is in the 0.01% zone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like WP:RM, and open discussions on broader issues at an appropriate venue, like WT:MOSCAPS (and even at venues where opinion is apt to be stacked against him, like WT:HOCKEY). The only interesting thing about this ANI report is that it's part of a long pattern of trying to abuse noticeboards to "get rid of an opponent" by editors who are bent on pursuing the WP:Specialized-style fallacy to over-capitalize things that pertain to their pet topics. One of the main reasons we have site-wide style guidelines and naming conventions is that various vociferous participants in topical wikiprojects (especially but not limited to sports ones) again and again refuse to approach capitalization and some other style matters with civility and with our broad readership in mind, and perpetually engage in special pleading fallacies to try to get weird exceptions that cannot be properly supported by independent reliable source material. That is the actual behavioral problem. PS: I just remembered I addressed pretty much this entire thread in an essay a long time ago; the most pertinent part is WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[67][68][69][70][71][72][73] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[74] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[75] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[76] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[77] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see we're repeating Talk:Red_Line_(MBTA), Talk:Boylston Street subway, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_31#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations... I'll note that I disagreed with Dicklyon in that last thread, and I still think I was right — not that MOS:CAPS should be ignored, but that its proper application would imply capitals where he doesn't want them. But the conversation was so unpleasant that I gave up... which seems to be how consensus about these (largely frivolous) matters is determined. My condolences to those reopening the old wounds. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese". XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a reason that MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise the usual suspects showed up to support. There must be off-wiki coordination between these guys. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry.

As for Dick, his constant failure to distinguish between uncreative proper names and mere descriptions shows a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar and shows he shouldn't be involved in this crusade of his in the first place. Not to mention the bludgeoning of discussions, inability to accept that others who disagree with him do care about articles (and thereby failure to adhere to the policy of WP:AGF) and practice of continuing to make edits and move pages even after objections have been raised and discussion is still ongoing are incredibly un-collaborative behaviors. He needs to learn that he's not automatically right.

Plus his "evidence" usually consists of an n-grams search. A product of Google. His employer. That's a conflict-of-interest issue. One that needs to stop. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I watch Dicklyon's activity closely, because he is so frequently attacked, along with all of MoS and the editors who work on it, by the same little WP:GANGs of topical-wikiproject blowhards. The "usual suspects" here are you and the few other anti-guideline activists. You don't need to agree with Dicklyon and his understanding of English. You need to stop denying the evidence he brings to bear. Properly constructed n-grams are precisely the kind of evidence that is of use in such debates. If sources independent of your pet topic are not overwhelmingly capitalizing something, then WP will not either. See first three sentences of MOS:CAPS. And "areas they've never edited before" is just more WP:OWN nonsense. Typographic cleanup across the entire encyclopedia, regardless of topic, is an activity for anyone, and it is precisely because of wikiproject-originating "special exceptionalism" that such cleanup is so often needed. PS: You clearly have no idea what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals" is enabled partly by the sort of "notice board" mechanism at the top of WT:MOSCAPS that we started several years ago, in an attempt to balance the WikiProject notification systems that brought so many topic fans to conversations. Yes, there are a few of us "usual suspects" that pay attention there; not very many, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that thing is soft canvassing and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: [78].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been accused of "a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar" before. I actually write a lot, including a book and many peer-reviewed articles, and have been praised for how precisely I write. I just got a review back on an article I submitted, which included "The results and proofs are quite technical and the author is nonetheless precise in their treatment." Obviously, that's math, not English proper name issues, but still, I do know what I'm doing, grammar wise, and style-wise, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, unless you come here brandishing a hammer and nails, your not welcome. Sounds like more WP:OWN. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry. This is a serious allegation. Do you really wish to make it? If so, you need to substantiate it. What, in the fundamentals of English grammar is an "uncreative proper name" or for that matter, the converse, a creative proper name? WP:AGF does not mean somebody has to agree with your opinion because you think you are right and they are wrong and how does this allegation of a COI remotely coincide with WP:COI? Overall, this post is just saying, leave our patch alone, we know best. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not we'd go any specialist topic. I've had issues with Dick's battering ram approach in multiple topic areas. As someone said above, if there's constant conflict over this with many different topic areas and many different editors, then one only logically needs to look at the common denominator of the conflicts: Dick Lyon. Not everyone else. Maybe it's time for the MOSistas to realize that the tail doesn't wag the dog. It's not OWN to say that a small subset of editors on an obscure talk page (as all Wikipedia namespace talk pages are) don't get to dictate to the entire project how to write. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual common denominator is the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, in which topically-absorbed editors think WP articles on their pet topic should be written the way a website by and for fans of that topic would be written. MoS is one of the most-watchlisted WP:-namespace pages on the entire system, with 20-ish years of continual input from the community (and MOS:CAPS its busiest sub-page when it comes to discussion). In short, you are conspiracy-theorizing. If there's something in MOS:CAPS you disagree with, start a discussion at WT:MOSCAPS. Raging on about how you just don't like it, and casting aspersions at anyone who abides by it, isn't constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Bing alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that all this reminds me of countless previous discussions about capitalisation - a proposal is made, it gets some pushback, and then Dicklyon and/or a few supporters (SMcCandlish included) turn up (if it wasn't them that made the proposal in the first place) and it descends into a war of attrition where n-grams are wielded as weapons and sources that present the opposing view are dismissed as "specialist" or otherwise unusable. This persists until the opposition gives up. Sometimes Dick et al are right about the capitalisation, sometimes they are wrong, but this is how almost every discussion in which one or more people strongly disagree with them (rightly or wrongly, whether policy or evidence based or otherwise) goes. Examples have been posted in this thread, anyone who cares can look at contested requested move in which they are involved to see plenty examples. As XOR'easter notes, it's pointless arguing against them because they care far more deeply about it and will not give up until they get the "right" answer. Don't bother pinging me here, I don't have the time or energy to fight (so they will just carry on driving people away from the project). Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personalized fingerpointing without substance. Why have policies and guidelines at all, since every line item in each of them is detested by someone, a fraction of whom will go into a rage when they don't WP:WIN? (Cf. any notability discussion, for starters.) Let's summarize what you wrote: A proposal is made, gets pushback; evidence is provided, other evidence is disagreed with; sometimes the proposals are right, sometimes not; people stick to their guns until one side finally concedes (or is decided against); and this is how it always goes. Yep. That is exactly how every proposal about anything, ever, on Wikipedia goes. Nothing to do with capitalization or Dicklyon in particular. This thread's purpose was pillorying Dicklyon (by those who wish guidelines didn't apply to their pet topic, so they could write here about that topic the way they would on their own website to other deep fans of said topic). But there's no evidence of his having done anything wrong. (I didn't get into it, but I could easily paste in diffs here of his haters being grossly uncivil across all of these discussions; the fact that they drive themselves to hate by their own typographic obsessions is the real problem.) The take-away from your post (and many others before it) seems to be that you simply don't like the facts that we have a style guideline and that anyone ever dares to propose that we follow it. Disliking a guideline doesn't make those who use it bad-actors; it means you have a problem with consensus. If you think MOS:CAPS should change, you know where WT:MOSCAPS is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting too far into the weeds of a content dispute. My history with this editor was only for some page moves related to baseball. I don't really have an issue with the guidelines, but the suggestion that it's a simple black and white issue is a little misleading. Someone who doesn't follow baseball might not capitalize "Division series," but an argument can be made that it's a proper noun based on sourcing. The English language isn't a math equation. Treating it like one can lead to problems. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument does get to be made, and is either convincing or it's not, to the community and then an independent closer. The RM in question went your preferred way, so what on earth are you complaining about? You appear to think that RM process should simply not exist, or that anyone who uses it and doesn't WP:WIN should be barred from ever using it again. WP does not work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a paragraph and a half typed that said your final two sentences less well than that. The MOS:CAPS, and the manual of style as a whole, is a guideline. The guidelines are generally right, but they are guidelines not commandments, discussions about how to apply guidelines to specific articles are not battles to be won or lost (and SMcCandlish's comment above is a great example of the battleground attitude on display in many such discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Calmly explaining the holes I see in your reasoning is not a battleground attitude. But you not understanding that is closely related to your refusal to see that proposing moves, using the process for proposing moves, and opening discussions about article naming (often in the wikiprojects most apt to care about the naming) is not battlegrounding either, but pefectly reasonable. There's a Catch-22 you're not addressing here, too. It's clear that you and a few others are just tired of seeing capitalization-related RMs. But WP has millions of articles, thousands of them arguably mis-capitalized, across many, many topics, and this necessarily means many RMs to clean them up, because no one will accept a monolithic mass-RM that crosses numerous topics. Every cluster of similar articles has to be handled in a separate RM. This is just demonstrably how the process has to work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[79] I think BilCat said it best:

  Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules.

  - Skipple ☎ 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Their expertise in the subject" = "Wikiproject members should not have to follow guidelines". It's just more WP:OWN stuff. Hockey fans are not "experts", they're just hockey fans. Joining a wikiproject doesn't make you an expert and doesn't magically give you special editing rights. The very reason that we have WP:RM process is to populate the discussions with other editors than the ones already deeply involved in a page's topic. We have WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting control over content is inherently problematic. (And I say that as someone who participates in lots of wikiprojects.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I generally agree with Dicklyon's general position on each of these individual cases; the MOS in all of these cases was largely being ignored, and in most cases, it shouldn't have been. On the other, I find Dicklyon's behavior severely offputting. I find their WP:BLUDGEON-type tactics and borderline WP:INCIVIL tone to be so offputting, I've felt reservations in supporting them, even though I agreed with them. It really says something to me when I can't openly agree with someone because their behavior is so offputting, I fear some of the negative aspects of it rubbing off on my own reputation merely because I think they are right, despite their ugly behavior. On the one hand, many of the problems with this issue would not have been fixed had it not been for Dicklyon's attention to them. On the other hand, dude, chill. At some point, your behavior hurts your own cause.--Jayron32 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to agree with Jayron32, and said as much last year: I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case.... I would say that also goes for SMcCandlish, whose interventions on Dicklyon's behalf tend to raise rather than lower the temperature in a conversation. WikiProjects, and I speak from experience, can be clannish and internally-focused and don't appreciate externally-driven change. That's true for issues beyond capitalization. Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done, but it makes everyone upset and leads to unhelpful threads like this one. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On one point "Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done", I disagree entirely. One can be pleasant, civil, and not even come close to WP:BLUDGEON, and still get things done. Even more so, I assert that better behavior would tend to get more done as it would avoid driving away people from your cause that would otherwise support it. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm tired of the "but we're just enforcing policy!" arguments. First of all, they're guidelines in this instance, and secondly it is a massive waste of editor time to argue over capitalization instead of doing something that actually improves the encyclopedia for readers. I don't buy the complaints about people "defending their turf". WikiProjects can sometimes engage in such behavior, and I've seen it myself, but it's much more that people don't want to spend hours arguing with a few people who will stop at nothing to push their interpretation of guidelines down everyone else's throats, especially over something so minor and inconsequential. It has and will continue to drive good editors away from the encyclopedia, which hurts us far more than something having the "wrong" capitalization. I agree with much of what Thryduulf says above. MOS:CAPS is a guideline, not a policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's self-contradictory. If you've seen wikiprojects defending their turf yourself, then you can't reasonably say that wikiprojects don't defend their turf. If the matter is so minor and inconsequential and editors think it's a waste of time to argue about, then why do these few editors so unreasonably expend time arguing about it as if it's major and consequential? Can't have it both ways. The entire thrust of this ANI is "we really, really, really care about these capital letters and Dicklyon should be punished for getting in our capitalizing way."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not entirely true. A non-negligible part of this ANI is "We agree with Dicklyon's general stance on capitalization, but we find his behavior to be problematic, and would like him to get better at that". See above, in case you missed it. --Jayron32 18:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet there is no actual demonstration of Dicklyon doing anything wrong, and lots of diffs of his opponents doing things wrong, like engaging in a long series of personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your comment because I really don't have an issue on the content dispute. There's a good faith way to go about making those changes. It's clear that a couple of editors are very difficult to work with when it comes to this topic and based on this ANI and the other one it's not getting better. Something needs to be done because the status quo doesn't appear to be working. Nemov (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nemov – if you'll allow me some words in my defense – I don't know how/why you stepped into this, or how you decided that what's not working is my fault. Take a look at where discussion started on May 4: WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again, where I immediately started a discussion on being reverted. You can see that Deadman137 declined to explain why he wanted capital letters there, and instead resorted to personal attacks on me. I tried to stay as civil as possible, even after he forked the discussion to the project page and on May 8 canvassed editors to join in his ridiculous proposal (to "rescind the current horribly flawed and under scrutinized rule and replace it with a reasonable argument made by GoodDay in 2020..."). Oh, I see, you jumped in right after he pinged you. Downhill from there, and your involvement with the silly RFC and now ANI just fanned the flames. Why is this on me? (see also SMcCandlish's comments to that effect above) Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real behavioral issue

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines. That's why I made the "self report" that Nemov refers to, to lay out the back story and their case against me for doing what I do (editing and discussing). Here, I copy it in since some of you probably haven't followed the links (I leave the dated signatures from the draft):

User:Dicklyon is lowercasing things like "Preliminary Round" in hockey articles

I am reporting myself because the handful of hockey editors who keep threating to haul me off to ANI or t-ban can't agree on who should do it. We've been in discussions for quite a while, and they started an RFC about whether whether hockey's "status quo" should be an exception, perhaps under WP:IAR, to the usual provisions of MOS:CAPS. The response at the RFC overwhelmingly rejects that idea, but it's still open, and they want me to stop editing while it's open; my edits are not hockey specific, but some hockey articles are in the mix (I think it's probably mostly soccer, but plenty of other sports).

Relevant recent discussions include:

• WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again – a May 4 follow-on to WT:MOSCAPS#Conference Finals and Semifinals capitalization of Feb.
• WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization – a hockey fork of the above discussion, with some explicit canvassing
• WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#RfC: NHL round names capitalization – an ill-formed RFC on the hockey project page asking for a hockey-specific exception to our usual capitalization guidelines. Roundly rejected by editors who are not such big hockey fans, but a few of those like to argue for their unnecessary caps.
• A weirdly non-specific template warning from Deadman137, apparently about this revert of one of my JWB edits at 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs (in which I had lowercased "preliminary round" like in essentially all books)

Their "case" against me seems to be that

• I ignore editors who disagree with me (not so; I discuss and elicit consensus when there's disagreement)
• I've been called up on AN and ANI before (yes, I have, usually by an editor who wants special dispensation for capital letters in their area)
• I've been blocked more than once (guilty as charged; but I'm pretty reformed in recent years)
• I opened (and lost) an RM discussion at Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020 after some of my moves were reverted (was that not the right thing to do?)
• I've "edit warred" over the case of "Preliminary Round" (I did make a few such edits in hockey including one recently that Deadman137 reverted)
• Another hockey edit of mine was reverted since the RFC started: "First Round" to "First round" on 17 May (that's 2 out of the thousands of edits I've done since then)

@Deadman137, Nemov, Sbaio, and The Kip: y'all wanted to talk about it here, right? Or is it just that you want to treat "Preliminary Round" and such as proper names in hockey? Consensus says no, so why keep threatening me? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Kip says I have a one-man crusade and that I should have a t-ban even though the RFC is in my favor.
• Sbaio says at least a TBAN (on ice-hockey related content) is a very strong option.
• Deadman137 says I should be banned from capitalization more generally, considering I lowercased "Preliminary Round" while the RFC is open.
• Nemov says he'd take me to ANI himself, except he doesn't know the full history.

I ask two things: 1. Close the RFC in favor of no MOSCAPS exception for hockey. 2. Suggest editors stop threatening me when I'm discussing in good faith – if the occasional hockey page gets caught in my case-fix patterns, feel free to revert but not to threaten or template me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you in any way. I just agreed with other editors that a topic ban might be an option, because you are running around with different editing gadgets (AWB, JWB, etc) and keep changing a lot of pages without even waiting for the discussions to finish. Therefore, that is disruptive to say the least and this is not the first time that you have done this (as can be seen in the edit link of mine). In addition, I am not going to waste my time here so you can just stop pinging me. – sbaio 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines.

I created this ANI and I'm not a hockey fan or edit hockey articles. The outcome of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral issues discussed by myself and others. I know some would like to focus on the content dispute because it obfuscates the central issue of disruptive edits. That seemed to be successful in the last ANI, but Dickylon is making a lot of changes to articles where its clear they do not have full understanding of the context.

Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sbaio, you don't read this as a threat to take me to ANI? I'm not "running around using lots of gadgets". Just JWB. And since that RFC opened, I apparently got 2 hockey articles into the mix (that's all that got mentioned anyway, and I left them after they were reverted; I'll fix them after the RFC closes). I don't see what you mean by disruption, just because I'm doing a lot of case fixing (99% without any objections). Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemov, what context do you think I don't understand? Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Path forward

Instead of repeating more wall of text bludgeonathon that cover the same arguments about capitalization, is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? It clear that even some of the editors who generally support Dicklyon and SMcCandlish's edits have expressed the problematic nature of how they're going about it. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on and there's more productive things that editors could be spending their time on than arguing about it. Does anyone outside the usual suspects on this topic have any recommendations? I'll gladly withdraw this if there's no way reduce the tension, I don't want to waste any more time if there's no path forward. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are arguments about capitalization even relevant here? The RFC has already shown that there's no appetite for a hockey exception to MOSCAPS. The path forward is to close the RFC, close this section, and get back to routine. I have no intention to pick on any of you or on hockey as we move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw this because there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Dicklyon's part (and because you blatantly canvassed a wikiproject to come and pile on). Using prescribed RM process and opening discussions (exactly what Dicklyon was told to do in a previous ANI, I might add), which other people then turn uncivil in when they don't think they're going to get their way, is not an actionable offense by Dicklyon. This entire ANI is vexatious, and very clearly not going to come to a consensus on sanctions, despite some people becoming self-irritated by their own over-investment in the most trivial of all sorts of content disputes then projecting their behavior onto Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov I don't know whether I count as a "usual suspect" here or not (but I'm certain that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish do) and my comments are completely unrelated to the content dispute - I have no opinion about the capitalisation of hockey articles and before this thread I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute. My experience with capitalisation discussions comes entirely in different topic areas, but the behaviour is identical, and it is the behaviour that is the issue that needs addressing. My first thought is that either a topic ban for both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish from the topic of capitalisation would do a lot of good, but I'm not certain it needs to go that far (yet, and hopefully not ever) as restricting each of them to one comment (and up to one answer per direct question thereafter) per capitalisation discussion would allow them to contribute in an area they clearly feel passionate about without allowing them to continue bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be topic-banned from capitalization? Provide diffs that show me bludgeoning RM discussions. All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS and those who abide by it. "SMcCandlish agrees with Dicklyon, so ban him too." Who is it again who has a battleground problem? PS: Maybe in this discussion I've commented more than I should have, but this is not a capitalization discussion, it's a thread about proposing sanctions against an editor, at a page that exists for vociferous discussion of such sanctions proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS shows that you have completely misunderstood the complaints here. Nobody here has an axe to grind regarding MOS:CAPS, the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A long response to Nemov

There is a social contract in editing on WP to follow P&G. What I am seeing in recent comments are sentiments that MOS:CAPS is wrong, there is nuance that only those that know the subject can deal with, it's only a guideline (we don't have to follow it) and its not that important so leave us alone. An interesting comment was Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner ... Well, unless we have a middle-case, it is a binary choice. These comments are ultimately an expression of ownership. Caps are often used for emphasis or distinction of what is otherwise a descriptive noun phrase, which MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says we don't do. It is a documented phenomenon, that this is more likely in writing by those close to the subject (WP:Specialist style fallacy). The capitalisation of such descriptive terms is then rationalised by [mis]labelling them as proper nouns|noun phrases - because they are important or significant things and not just any old generic thing. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on ... is a metaphor for the battle ground nature that can develop. I would agree; however, it only becomes a battleground when two sides contest the ground and the insinuation is that those holding the [moral] high-ground should be left alone and that it isn't important. If it isn't important, why should either side contest it? For those that would remove unnecessary over-capitalisation, there is a matter of improving readability (SMcCandlish could probably add to this).

Let us look at this specific case. DL was downcasing terms like finals which are descriptive. He was challenged (reverted) on some edits and bought this to discussion at WT:MOSCAPS, in which anybody can contribute and appropriate notification can be made. We get this response by the reverting editor: The group of editors pushing this need to find a more constructive way to contribute to the site, as all this does is waste the time of productive editors on general nonsense. And this comment: The worst part is they're going to claim consensus here among their little circle and then go bulldoze discussions elsewhere claiming to be the sort of broader consensus described in WP:CONLIMITED when it's literally only four guys in an obscure talk page as opposed to the larger numbers disagreeing in the actual articles. That was the only comment oknazevad had made to that point. WP:CONLIMITED states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Was this an appropriate citing of WP:CONLIMITED by oknazevad given that the discussion occurred at a highly visible guideline TP where the broader community consensus is explicitly discussed? Is there a consensus from the discussion? oknazevad's comment makes it clear that there probably is despite their objection. DL proceeds on the basis there was and was reverted again by the original reverting editor with this comment (and similar): We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. The matter has then been further and concurrently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization where we get this comment: Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. An RfC followed. The outcome has been pretty evident from the start and is still quite clear but the we get cries of burn the witch (take DL to ANI). The OP made broad assertions of misconduct but has lacked evidence to substantiate these and we have an allegation by meat puppetry by oknazevad, which has been neither substantiated nor redacted. We also have the caracterisation of "MOSistas" - milder but still an WP:ASPERSION.

• If one writes for any organisation, there are editorial policies and style to abide by. WP is no different.
• How is ensuring compliance with the established WP style wrong? If compliance wasn't expected, why was it written?
• Given that compliance with style is a reasonable expectation, what is the source of contention and battle ground conduct? How is this remedied?
• How has DL not reasonably followed process?
• What specifically has DL done (evidence?) that is actionable at ANI?

WP:P&G is already a Wikipedia:Contentious topic but this does not extend beyond the subject pages to the application of WP:P&G. Potentially, this could be extended to the application of P&G to rope-in all of the afore events. What would be the consequences of this? I would look closely at the battlegroundy statements that have been evidenced. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without wading into all of that (though I agree with your step-by-step summary of what happened), I do want to comment that the one name that comes up again and again and again in these discussions, not just the recent ones, as an uncivil battlegrounder is Oknazevad; this post alone is probably block-worthy. If any editor needs a topic-ban from capitalization discussions, it is that one. I've repeatedly been of half a mind to do a diff pile of all Oknazevad's attacks and take it to WP:AE since this topic area is under WP:CTOP. But I have little stomach for "dramaboarding".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the content dispute because I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization of proper nouns. Let's go back to my original point. Capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. Just review this ANI: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have undoubtablty made my point for me. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will stipulate that I speak too much in my own defense. And maybe SMcCandlish speaks too much in my defense, too. What do you expect when you bring accusations to ANI? And why won't you answer questions directed to you above about clarifying vague accusations? Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemov, am I to comprehend from your response, when you have said, I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization ..., that you have not read the response I made to you? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've skim-read it and didn't see anything of particular relevance to the behavioural issues beyond "it takes two sides to make a battleground" which doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks, my sense is that this is one of those situations where no individual edit is so bad that there is an easy-to-understand way of quickly describing (and proving) the problem. That makes the matter inappropriate for ANI. There is clearly a battleground situation here ("...to balance the WikiProject notification systems"). I don't have a horse in this race but, as an uninvolved editor, I think this goes to WP:ARB. It will be a very painful case to put together and, even with a few hours of work put into it, will quite possibly be rejected. But this issue is clearly long-running and needs folks with a longer attention span than ANI to deal with it. Note: I've not put in the time to figure out who is right. Merely noting that we all agree these types of disputes have been long-running and causing a significant degree of unhappiness. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am User:Sunshine1287. As you can see on my user page, I have declared a conflict of interest: “I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.” I am in-fact, the co-founder of this business and would be happy to verify my identity privately. The only thing I did with my account is create a draft for QOR360 and submitted it to the Articles for Creation queue, where an editor reviewed it and published it. I disclosed my conflict of interest on the Talk page of the draft, but you can no longer see the page because User:Smartse moved the published page to Draft today, then somehow managed to delete the Draft. So there’s no record. But you can see on my user contribution history through, this note: (“Created page with 'I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sunshine1287 and you can see on user Talk page that is was accepted at Articles for Creation by an editor User: Cabrils

@QuicoleJR: Aren’t pages supposed to be discussed for deletion by multiple editors when they’ve been approved at Articles for Creation rather than unilaterally deleted by one person? I don’t know if User:Smartse deleted the page because they don’t think it’s notable or just because they think it’s part of this web of undisclosed paid editing accounts. Can someone please rescue the page and re-publish it? Then if User:Smartse or someone else wants to challenge whether it is notable, they can start a discussion. Also, FYI,User:Smartse didn’t leave the required notice, referenced in the box above, on my user Talk page about this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunshine1287 Thanks.

Why did you ping me? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion: #Ban proposal for undisclosed paid editor Wikipedia Genie. Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So me and this user (Roman Reigns Fanboy) had a dispute on the Emirate of Afghanistan talk page.[81] Eventually a consensus was later established with three editors (me and two others) as a solution and which he later agreed with.

The issue I'm raising here is how he was uncivil in the talk page discussion specifically towards the end by accusing me of bias,[82] saying they had no regret doing it.[83] while also saying stuff like "I don't care if you take offense". [84]

I felt this was unconstructive toward the editing and dispute and told him he was in bad faith while doing so, and voiced my displeasure from the comments he made by pointing it out and trying and follow "Wikipedia: How to be civil" [85] "Editors can apply peer pressure by voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility occurs; however, some care is required: If the comment is read as an insult, or seems to belittle another editor; the situation could be inflamed further. Peer pressure works best when it comes from friends or people the editor already trusts or respects."

I don't believe the manner of what I said was belittling or meant to be insulting. After the dispute was settled, he told me not to contact him further (which he edited in as I was drafting a reply to what he last said). [86]

I did notify the user of the ANI, here. [87]

So I would like an Administrator to review the discussion and possible incident of incivility. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any regret over what I've said as the user has created a needless dispute and his motivations seemed suspect to me. He has been fighting over a mere addition of "British protected state" which is just three words in the infobox, even while acknowledging that Afghanistan did have such a treaty with Britain. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be best to leave the dispute away from this discussion. The discussion for the dispute already ended on a consensus on the options that it should be removed, or properly clarified, and the consensus went for the clarification option as suggested by me, and sudo. Noorullah (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was also not a needless dispute, since I am working on topics of the region, and same time period, and even planned to expand the same page, I saw fit to also edit the infobox in that manner. Noorullah (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is what caused me to doubt you in the first place and call you biased. Also you've been fighting over something that is merely three words long and already mentioned in the Emirate of Afghanistan. So yes it was needless. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: - you can do more to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's not impressive reading I have no regret calling you biased because you are User:Noorullah21. Try to avoid making the dispute personal. starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize now. Over the past few months I have been both physically and mentally unwell. And I've also found Wikipedia a frustrating place. So sometimes there is an outburst. I think I'll just reduce my time here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fanboy I accept your apology, I wish to see no hate between us! I believe you are a valued contributer and I wish to see us be on even grounds, because if we edit in the same topics again, another dispute like this could arise! So it is best to not hold grudges against each other. I also wish to apologize because at the start of the dispute, I believe my explaining was quite poor (as you also called out). Noorullah (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[94][95], general disruptiveness/vandalism[96][97][98][99][100], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[101], and other BLP violations[102].

Despite all this, they again moved Draft:Ilay Feingold to the mainspace, with the incorrect claims about winning a senior title (with a citation needed tag), and with the incorrect edit summary of "Perform requested move, see talk page", which they also used when they moved Draft:Tai Abed, someone else's unsubmitted draft to mainspace.

Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at one of these page moves where the editor said to see a talk page discussion and, believe it or not, the article had no talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Liz for your misleading comments.

1. I was looking at one of these page moves again, and the draft:XXX, has a talk page. not the article:xxx.

2. Ilay Feingold is not different then any other soccer star playing currently in the U20 World Cup in Argentina. blocking israeli contributors and allowing argentinian contributors is just racism.

3. each wikipedia article, has a link to a wikidata. all those wikidatas have a legit TRANSFERMARKT section.

If Leo Messi's wikidata has a legit transfermarkt link, than Tai Abed can have a transfermarkt link as well.

please contact the wikipedia creator in order to remove the wikidata transfermarkt section from the wikidata template. if they will approve, then contact me again. until then, please stop BLP violate any of the soccer pages, and please do not remove the transfermarkt link from the article: Leo Messi. cheers, User:HonorTheIsland

• Comment: Liz's comments are not misleading at all and Fram's points are accurate.

• Here is the move [103] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.
• Here [104] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [105] you move it back [106] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.
• Repeated again here [107], no talk page, and again [108] (no talk page) and again [109] (blank talk page).

 // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor contributions on Andhra Pradesh District pages are found to be vandalism. Despite warnings, the user is persisting in vandalism for more than a month. Recent IP contributions are at Special:Contributions/2601:41:C500:4D80:F5FE:DC53:EB54:2CCF. Kindly take appropriate action.Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia

I have been making small but hopefully valuable edits since I started this year and my reason for doing these edits is that it keeps me busy and helps me feel connected due to my disability which is fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I have come across something very interesting which I hope you will also find useful.

With reference to Adam Leitman Bailey - [[110]]

I recently removed part of an article relating to a suspension which ended in 2019, I then received a message from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orangemike stating that my edits constituted vandalism and that they have been reverted. On the same day I noticed that another user left the following comment:

04:00, 29 April 2023‎ Iloveapphysics talk contribs‎  14,813 bytes +725‎  Undid revision 1149354607 by Bijou1995 (talk) Why does this keep getting removed? Is this another sockpuppet? undothank Tag: Undo

Normally I don’t mind being reprimanded for my edits if they are wrong but I don’t feel on this occasion that it was or rather ‘the reversion with no communication’ didn’t sit right with me. I normally thank people for their help as I find it constructive and useful.

I have contacted iloveapphysics today after speaking with Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. When looking over the history etc I found that there appears to be an ‘edit war’ going on so as a newcomer I thought it best to seek help.

The reason I removed the suspension was because I felt it had been spent, the suspension was for four months and ended in 2019. The old information appeared to overshadow the positive aspects of this business owner. I also found it to be grossly unfair on the subject. I didn’t think too much of it hence the small explanation on minor edits. I can assure you that my edit was incidental and I knew nothing of the subject or the history before I edited the page.

I started looking into Iloveapphysics and noticed that the user has reverted the suspension previously and seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects. I tend to have a more positive approach and enjoy adding awards etc but I do understand that information must be truthful however here is the problem. Iloveapphysics appears to have it in for politicians and businessmen. I noticed that he/she enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects, whilst the info may/may not be factual it seems vicious and deliberately added to cause harm to these people. Another point I have noticed from I loveapppysics list of edits is that three of the people she edited appear to be high profile New York City politicians or lawyers who have sued politicians. Sheldon Silver, Alesessandra Biaggi and Adam Leitman Bailey. Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue and that is why he/she possibly created an attack page and keeps protecting it and reverts it without a talk page. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects? Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts? Here are a few victims of iloveapphysics but there may be more:

Alexander De Croo

Marianna Madia

Sheldon Silver ‎

Alessandra Biaggi

Adam Leitman Bailey

I am a newcomer here but shouldn’t Iloveapphysics have discussed it with me on my talk page? I found being called a sockpuppet (whatever that is) to be rather rude, hence my investigation. I also believe that ‘reverting’ my edit like that WAS hostile and from what I have been reading ‘clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia’ let alone the essay on ‘encourage the newcomer’

The talk page on Adam Leitmans account also aroused my interest.

Firstly there is a protection on the subject's Wikipedia account in the history, is this person the victim of attacks?

Other users on the subjects talk page make some valuable points:

WP G10 - this section constitutes an attack page

WP BLPCOI - Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used ‘for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities…

The language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WPBLPBALANCE, the phrasing “undignified conduct’ is slanted and goes against Wikipedia's policy that @the overall presentation and section headings should be broadly neutral”

Next you will see that another user has made some more interesting points:

Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page. It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey. Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities' '. The person who rewrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey.

From my humble investigations I do think that these users make some really good points and the fact that iloveapphysics seems to want to bring down others surely this warrants an investigation on Wikipedia’s part.

Summary

On a personal level please consider these points so that my edit on Adam Leitman Bailey's page is reinstated or if it has to remain then perhaps it could be in the document but not under an aggressive heading. The reversion wars should be stopped once and for all and that other subjects won't fall victim to iloveapphysics. The edits on the other people are of concern to me but as I did not edit them there is nothing I can do about them.

I feel the information on the subject is not a fair representation.

The information is old and suspension has been lifted 4 years ago

The serious defamatory comments should be oversighted/deletion by suppression

Edit warring make the page history less useful

The suspension information is not encyclopedic

The heading and information on the suspension is aggressive, bold and detracts from the rest of the page.

It could be possible that the Wiki author of the suspension has tried to directly assault the subject and others because of a personal vendetta, be a competitor or someone with a grudge against politicians and successful business men/women

Iloveappphysics does not have a user page which I find suspicious, is he/she out to discredit others?

The fact that someone received a discretionary sanctions alert by vandalizing the subject's Adam Leitman Baileys page is also very concerning and the history of the edit wars should be investigated.

There is a pattern of behaviour with iloveapphysics in reference to politicians, business men and possibly lawyers in which case is there an interest in favouring one political party over another? making his/her interest interfering with being unbiased.

Here are some points I read on reverting

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favour of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reverting drives away editors - Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists.

I apologise for this being so lengthy but as you may have noticed I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia as I have been busy collating all this information and trying to understand it for over a week. I also hope you will consider my points and take my contribution seriously. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Marnie - Bijou1995[reply]

Bijou1995, I have some questions for you: What is your connection to Adam Leitman Bailey? Did he or someone else ask you to edit this page? What is your connection to the other people who have commented at Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey? – bradv 12:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

There is no connection, nor is there any connection to the other people I mentioned. I live in the UK. I believe all these people are in the USA but I can't be sure, I'd have to look at their pages again.

Bijou1995 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, since you are making the same edit and the same arguments as all those other accounts. What led you to this article? – bradv 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the article when trying to find something to edit ( sometimes I do a search for certain things) and took out the information because it was old (spent as we say in England) I didn't think anything of it really, I found it very negative and thought it was spiteful so I removed it. As for the arguments I mentioned other people's arguments which I found when I did some research, they are not mine . I only added them to give a clearer picture of the edit wars Bijou1995 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bijou1995, the article makes it clear that the reliably-sourced suspension was only for four months. Are you claiming that he was not suspended despite the New York Law Journal saying that he was? If the suspension was overturned then you need to provide a reliable source saying so. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not saying that, I don't know if its been overturned or not my point is Illove physics seems to want to defame others, he called me a sock puppet but maybe he is. My edits are positive and I understand that if things are true then they should be on there but surely when the info is old or not directly related to that person as in one of the others I mentioned ( iloveapphysics adds info about crime in the family on another account) it just doesn't seem right because the info detracts from the rest of the article like defamation and these people suffer I imagine, it just doesn't seem fair and if ilovephysics has a Vendetta then shouldn't that be investigated? Bijou1995 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with your position Bijou1995. I honestly do except Wikipedia isn't about being fair. It's not even about being right. It's about reporting what is found in reliable sources. This is a typical position most people would take on various topics so don't feel bad or feel like anyone is trying to come down hard on you. I imagine people do suffer from things written on Wikipedia but not solely because it is on Wikipedia because Wikipedia only states what is found in those reliable sources. I think it can feel that way because of the extremely biased nature of what Wikipedia will allow to be included and because the encyclopedia coalesces all these sources together on one page. Wikipedia has to be biased to a degree because we can't allow just anything to be included and we are to take care to not include minority views on subjects just because they are there, especially when it comes to BLP's. It becomes problematic to start removing things from articles that we may not agree with simply because we think it isn't fair or we think that another editor may have a vendetta. It then becomes a slippery slope because what about the potential victims of said alleged crimes? This is why Wikipedia has rigid policies on notability and verifiability. I can appreciate where your heart is coming from and your concern for other people. I don't think someone should be accusing you of sockpuppetry without solid evidence to back that up. If they think you may be a sockpuppet then they should file an SPI rather than make accusations and cast aspersions. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thank you for your very kind response, it's refreshing to receive a nice message. Sometimes I get scared when reading messages from other editors telling me I've done an edit wrong as they can be a bit rude but now and again I receive a kind message, so thanks again.

I do understand what you are saying but the rules of Wiki seem a little bias, for instance I did Google Mr Leitman Bailey yesterday as these conversations sparked an interest in me, I found this https://www.buildingfoundationsanddreams.com/ so he's obviously a good person despite that suspension, would it be ok if I added that if its not already on there? Although I feel for the others that iloveapphysics has attacked, they are not my edits so I cannot do anything about them apart from support them and try to get justice on their behalf. Do you not think that the heading of the suspension is a little brutal? If I cannot get my edit reinstated then perhaps the info could still be in there without that ugly heading. Or can the info be removed permanently at some point? I think what I am trying to say is that although the suspension is true, the article is not a true representation of that person, it is only a small part of their life but yet so damaging and could potentially hurt them and may have a negative effect on the good work they do as in the link above, ultimately aren't children especially 'children in need' more important than someone's ego of reverting an edit. I do feel like I'm on some sort of crusade for all of these people and its not my intention to hurt iloveapphysics I just find their intention rather hostile and it appears they deliberately want to hurt others. I'm not sure how things work in other countries but kindness should be at the heart of everything we do. I am a Christian lady which is probably why i find iloveapphysics edits offensive. Please consider removing all of the negative information for all the people I have mentioned especially my edit and please look into iloveapphysics account to check it is an authentic one. Please be kind when replying as stress flares up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue? Oh, you poor, poor, totally real, not-at-all-pulling-the-exact-same-shtick-as-the-dozen-other-sockpuppets-this-guy's-made British Christian lady. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, Adam. Your Wikipedia page has a self-inflicted blot that won't be going away. No amount of SEO-optimized "charity" websites can fix it. Accept it, my dude. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP, read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning. Bijou1995, your attacks against other editors above ("seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects", "enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects", "Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue ", "Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts?", "It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey") are completely unacceptable. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. One more and you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

PS, since the existing semiprotection has not been effective against some obvious socking, I have applied ECP protection to the article. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Imamul Ifaz posted a uw-unsourced1 warning on my talk page. David Gerard had given him this same warning, with the same custom line (Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) prior to that. This shows that the editor copied it from his talk page onto mine. He did this in reply to a request I made in an edit summary that he first discuss his desired changes, and explain what the problem with the sources is, at Talk:Sheikh Hasina (an article which some will be familiar with). There, where he could have provided a meaningful reply to my question, he copy-pasted another message that he had received on his talk page (diff), from Nomian. The reply thus produced makes zero sense in context, which should be plain for everyone to see when looking at the history of Sheikh Hasina. Of course, he reverted back to his preferred version using a summary of "Last good version" which he picked up from his previous reverter (diff), which is more evidence of emulating other editors to cover for non-constructive edits. This means that the editor refuses to engage in collaborative editing, and is edit warring.

Further, such misuse of warnings means that the editor is not learning from the warnings. Perhaps he thinks that warnings are rocks that editors throw at each other: duck, pick up from the ground and hurl back. Perhaps, due to English proficiency limitations, writing authentic replies may be too burdensome, so he's parroting back what he's told to hide that fact. Probably, he understands that he has been disingenuous. Ultimately it doesn't seem that the editor is WP:HERE to a necessary degree, and shows little potential of improving his editing.

BTW, this is the edit that he started out with at Sheikh Hasina, with the following summary: expanded the intro of the political person for brief summery. WARNING!! Don't vandalize or remove anything without adequete reasoning. All the informations provided where written from massive research and trusted sources only. Thank you. Let me know in the talk page if anything needed. This was one of his sources: Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina deserves Nobel Peace Prize. When his positive-POV changes were reverted he pivoted to removing negative information.—Alalch E. 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, at FC Barcelona

• [111] adds content
• [112] is reverted once
• [113] top tags the FA-class article with "citations needed" (not necessarily a problem in itself, but it is a bizarre turn), while recycling the same David Gerrard's custom addition to a warning template, mentioned above (... Also I noticed that a user added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) . . . yet, there was no edit warring

I think this more clearly points to WP:CIR now.—Alalch E. 18:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Imamul Ifaz is now using ChatGPT. He made one revert, and when he complained about being reverted back, he replied with ... I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article. ... But he did not make anything more concise, he just made one revert that restored the lead to a less-concise form. LLM detectors detect that his message was machine-generated ... this is obvious, under the circumstances (As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.)—Alalch E. 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now he is reporting another editor below for the mess at Bangladesh. Wow. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He saw me start an ANI about him, and is now emulating this by starting an ANI about someone else. But he doesn't understand what it's for, just as he doesn't understand what the warnings he had used are for, or how to generate replies using ChatGPT that are relevant for the conversation.—Alalch E. 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He assured me he does not use an LLM, said it was offensive, then accused me of using an LLM. He said that it could offend people and did it in the same breath. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to collaborate with this editor if he should keep making comments like @Alalch E. is not the representative of Bangladesh. I will not be convinced by his particular argument as he has been accused of being biased before. —Alalch E. 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ජපස has carried out a series of unconstructive edits to the article 2007 Alderney UFO sighting, connected with its ongoing AfD. These edits have all involved the tagging or removal of cited material, in each case for tendentious reasons contrary to policy, guidelines and in some cases the established consensus on the Talk page. This seems to be a textbook case of a persistent user with a particular angle on an article (in this case, that it shouldn't exist) attempting to force their aims against consensus established locally and through site-wide guidance, norms and policy.

• The situation seems to have begun with this edit on 13 May, where ජපස blanked the page (against WP:BLANK) and proposed it for deletion under WP:TNT. I came to the article on 15 May, and rewrote it from scratch, sticking to generally-regarded WP:HQRS such as the BBC, the New Yorker, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
• ජපස made this edit and this edit on 15 May, tag-bombing the article with misused tags: using {{Dubious}} to dispute (without sources) the factual accuracy of an eyewitness report, tagging a direct quotation from a source with {{Peacock inline}}, and using {{too few opinions}} while simultaneously arguing on the Talk page and AfD that the opinions sought could not be found in HQRS. User:Boynamedsue made a post on the Talk page setting out the errors made in applying these tags. I reverted the edits here, pointing out that the tone and handling of the quotation tagged as WP:PEACOCK was almost identical to that used as a good example in the associated guideline.
• On 15 May, in a discussion on the Talk page, I made this comment that saying that facts stated in WP:HQRS are untrue requires another HQRS to say so (invoking, though not explicitly citing, WP:OR). ජපස responded to call that standard "paraphilic and bordering on the idolatrous".
• This edit on 18 May removed a further quotation, from a WP:HQRS (The Times). I reverted that removal here, explaining that The quotation has considerable value in establishing the interest of the article to the reader, and including the judgement of HQRS on a person or event's significance in the lead follows well-established practice. ජපස then reverted that reversion without an edit summary.
• This edit later on 18 May removed two quotations from well-established reliable sources (The Times and the Daily Telegraph), on the grounds that "no outside attestation to their importance is given". It is not required in any guideline or policy that an third-party source also quoted a HQRS's comment on a subject for that comment to be included.
• This edit by ජපස on 18 May removed cited material from The Times, on the WP:OR and WP:BLP-violating assertion that The Times seemed to have not been thorough in its fact-checking. Not surprising since the article is written by a credulous UFO-believer. An explanation was promised on the Talk page, but never materialised. In a second edit shortly afterwards, ජපස removed a further quotation from the same source, on the grounds that it was "unremarkable". User:Boynamedsue pointed out on the talk page here that this justification had no grounds in policy or guidelines. I reverted both removals here, pointing out that a user's OR into a journalist does not replace WP:HQRS, and that the only objection raised to that journalist on the Talk page (about his Twitter feed) had been shown to be a case of mistaken identity.
• On the 19th, ජපස reverted my reversion here. User:Boynamedsue restored the deleted material here, pointing out that it had been removed for no good reason, and pointed to the ongoing discussion of the quotation on the Talk page as to the credibility of the source and to the inclusion of the quotation. In both cases, there was and is no way of reading a consensus to remove into the discussion.
• In this edit on 24 May, ජපස removed one of the same quotations from from the lead, with an edit summary arguing that the quotation needed to be mentioned in an additional secondary source to be included. This has no basis in any policy or guideline. I reverted that removal here, referring the user back to the Talk page discussion, which still showed no consensus to remove it.
• In this edit, ජපස undid the reversion, dismissing the opposing (policy-based) views raised in Talk as "prejudice". I reverted that here with the summary that dismissing opposing views as "prejudice" is not a substitute for consensus. The editor removing cited material has the onus to demonstrate that the removal is in line with policy and an improvement to the article; there is presently an ongoing discussion and no consensus behind either of these suggestions.
• In this edit, ජපස once again removed the quotation, along with much of the surrounding information, citing WP:SENSATION. This follows a lengthy discussion on the AfD page, in which it was established that WP:SENSATION advises against the use of low-quality journalism to establish facts or notability, and is not an appropriate way to dismiss statements of opinion or uncontroversial facts in high-quality publications. Both the list of perennial sources, Talk page discussion and the AfD make clear that there is community consensus behind the reliability of The Times.
• There is also a broader pattern of less-than-collegial comments on the Talk page: see for instance here, here and here.

ජපස appears to be editing with the agenda of removing anything from the article which draws attention to the interest of the subject matter, or indeed which does not approach it from the perspective of "debunking" it. There is a clear pattern here of non-constructive edits, and no sign of this behaviour changing in light of discussion and explanations from multiple users that these actions are being taken unilaterally, against Wikipedia-wide norms and against local consensus. Charitably, I could call this over-enthusiastic application of WP:BRD, but ජපස is consistently failing to respect the R and the D phases of that cycle. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pro-fringe editor annoyed at jps? Must be Thursday. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the article that says that it's an actual UFO (ie aliens) as much as an item reported as a UFO, as they exist in society. Secretlondon (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tendentious editing looks to have been most vigorously carried out by User:UndercoverClassicist (and to some extent User:Boynamedsue), who doggedly edit-warred to include this sentence in the article lead: The sighting was mentioned in stories published by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The New Yorker and The Times, which described it as "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD (Ministry of Defence) archives” [114], [115], [116], [117] and [118]. A glance at the Talk page will show other editors (myself among them) objecting to having the lead showcasing one writer's hyperbolic quote. Unfortunately UndercoverClassicist continued to edit war for their preferred version, even after WP:CONSENSUS was explained to them. Despite this unpleasantness, they seem to have the makings of a good editor, and with a bit less impulsive action and a bit more experience, might turn out to be an asset to the project. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a bit more reading of pages like WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an admin's eye on the talk page: I don't see that consensus has been established for the quotation's removal, within the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS. If they take the view that it has, I'd be happy to accept that. However, the reason for opening this issue is the behaviour of User:ජපස in editing and discussing, not the underlying disagreement as to the article's content. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing here 6 months. It makes sense that you're not familiar with stuff like WP:ONUS and WP:BOOMERANG. But please, familiarize yourself now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 19kb UFO sighting article wherein the only secondary content (derived from discussion of the event from people other than the witnesses) is:

By 25 April 2007, the Ministry of Defence had stated that it would not investigate the reported sighting. Approximately a week after the reported sighting, the MoD stated the incident had taken place in French airspace and so was outside its responsibility.

According to The Times, Bowyer's report is "regarded as one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD archives". In 2008, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported on the incident in connection with what it called a "huge rise" in reported UFO sightings in the United Kingdom.

A local astronomer, Michael Maunder, attributed Bowyer's report to sun dogs, an optical phenomenon caused by the refraction of light through ice crystals in the atmosphere. He described the weather during the flight as "just right for setting up sundogs and similar phenomena". Sundogs appear at 22 degrees relative to the direction of the sun from the observer, and Maunder noted that at the time of Bowyer's sighting, the lights he reported seeing would have been approximately 22 degrees from the sun.

Modern studies of reported UFO encounters generally approach them as what the folklorist William Dewan has called "a modern dynamic legend". In particular, the content of these sighting and the meaning ascribed by them to those who experience them is understood as an intersection of direct experience, individual psychology and the cultural background of the observer.

That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists"[119], a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. This is a lot of text.

Look, UFO sightings are a fairly ridiculous topic, I hope we can all agree. Most of them are so poorly attested to as to make it nearly impossible to write a standalone article on them and adhere to WP:5P. But for some reason when the "papers" report someone seeing a UFO, there always seems to be a contingent of Wikipedians enthused to write an inordinately detailed article on each instance relying on obviously compromised "slow news day" accounts written in normally respectable periodicals.

Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, rather, doesn't exist), but we have comparatively few articles on famous Marian apparitions -- only the ones that are notable enough to have reliable sourcing (and that's a challenge enough -- see Our Lady of Fatima fights). We have almost no standalone articles on ghost sightings. Rightly so. What is it about UFOs inspires such editorial credulity? No, really, I wish I knew what it was.

jps (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some pretty serious WP:CIR issues a lack of knowledge regarding the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia from jps on this page.

• The user tagged direct quotations of individuals with "contradictory" and "peacock" tags, which is specifically not their use. edit-also used a "dubious" tag inside an indirect quotation

• They committed a BLP violation, accusing the Foreign Affairs editor of the Times Newspaper of being a "credulous UFO believer". I pointed out to them that this was the case, but they have not amended their post.

• Their understanding of our policy on reliable sources seems shaky, they seem to be claiming that any source mentioning lights in the sky can not be valid unless it is a debunking from a sceptic perspective.

• I would also add their behaviour at the deletion discussion on this article and a recent ANI thread where they were advised by several users that they were required to leave neutral messages when posting discussions to FTN noticeboard in order to avoid breaking WP:CANVASS. They simply argued that the rule was wrong[120], [121].

To me this indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in articles related to the "paranormal" understood broadly. I think they need to change their editing style, as it is becoming detrimental to the project in this area. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add the WP:NPA post they made on my talkpage, [122] which uses the word "snivelling" and implies I am a conspiracy theorist. I understand the user was upset, as I had put a warning on their page relating to canvassing which was partially incorrect, but taken with the other stuff, I think it also shows WP:BATTLEGROUND Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of being incompetent, as you did above with the reference to CIR, is also a personal attack. I have a bit of sympathy for jps here, as it is a little ludicrous that we have a long and detailed article about an incident which in the end is "some people saw an atmospheric anomaly". Also, the bit about credulous reporters does stand up a little if you search Matthew Campbell's pieces for the times (i.e. [123]) Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Half of my editing is resolving and removing tags, the use they made of tags was either incompetent or malicious. It should be understood that the WP:CIR relates only to that, as assuming malice would violate WP:AFG. I personally think misuse of tags should carry the death penalty, but I would settle for the user re-reading the policies in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going down the WP:CIR claims are WP:NPA violations, Jfs made the following personal attack on this page [124].We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This was due to the poster being unaware of the current majority scientific position regarding the Tunguska event, rather than any deficiency in their editing. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I have now struck the WP:CIR claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that accusations against living persons need to do more than "stand up a little" based on our interpretations of the headlines subeditors put on their articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINE reminds us that the headlines should not be used as a guide to the article's body text. I should be able to access that article this evening, but it certainly seems to be written as tongue-in-cheek. Likewise, a Wikipedia editor's opinion isn't enough (per WP:BLP) to justify a negative comment about them (particularly one with potential implications for their professional credibility): any contentious judgement on a living person needs to be cited or removed: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies in AfD and on this page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page block: UndercoverClassicist, as LuckyLouie implies above, don't take people to ANI unless you want your own conduct examined, because it will happen. I have page-blocked you from the AFD, which you have been seriosly bludgeoneing. I don't see how there can be anything left for you to say there that you haven't already said, often repeatedly. When you have made 25 posts to an AFD, many of them pretty long, it's past time to allow people to comment without a comeback from you. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I would suggest adding User:Boynamedsue as well, both for his conduct on the talk page and here at ANI. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request close (ec) What the OP describes here is not an urgent, chronic, intractable behavioral problem, but rather good faith attempts by an experienced editor in good standing (now a couple of such editors) to prevent, in Wikipedia's voice, the promotion of sensational, pro-fringe content. This complaint seems merely an attempt to silence an "opponent" in a content dispute. The OP has already been appropriately sanctioned (see above) for tendentious editing related to the page/topic. Before they receive additional sanctions I request that this discussion be closed, with a request that going forward the OP consider WP:COAL and the old basketball strategy: play the ball, not the man. FWIW, I asked the OP on their Talk page to withdraw this spurious complaint. That request was met with silence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, precisely because they are an experienced editor. They should know better than to make personal attacks, BLP violations and to tag-bomb articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, there's an AFD discussion about this very article that could use to be closed; it's been open almost 2 weeks, and there's plenty of comments from plenty of people that leaving it open any longer is just providing yet another locus for this silly dispute to take place in. I'd close, but I've also voted, so cannot. Kthxbye. --Jayron32 18:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we disable IP editing for a while?

This is a crazy idea, but this is ridculous. Mori Calliope fan talk 01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is never going to happen. Disruptive IP's should be individually warned on the talk page and eventually reported to AIV as needed. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is multiple IPs actively vandalizing articles. It is not a simple situation, considering the amount of reports there are at AIV right now. Mori Calliope fan talk 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these are open proxies - similar edits are being made from IPs in the Dominican Republic, Spain and Slovenia. There are probably more - those are just the ones I checked.

This is a serious attack.

I’d be wary of shutting down all IP editing. Even if you did that, this person will keep doing this whenever it’s turned back on.

For now, I suggest tuning the edit filter such that rapid IP editing is not just logged as it is now but the IP also blocked after 5 edits. I don’t know how hard this is to do.

I expect we’ll see more of this in the future now that someone’s figured this out and developed a taste for it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have set 1199 to throttle. Will self-revert in 30 minutes max. This should not impact normal IP editing in the vast majority of cases. CC Ingenuity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: See also 1253. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving 1199 on throttle a while longer, still almost all true positives. If this is still going by the time I go to bed, I'll either turn it off or hand off to another EFM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikimedia ever goes through with removing IP addresses from being publicly visible on edits, we may very well have to permanently disable IP editing. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I have supported permanently disabling IP editing for over 15 years, and still do. Every day, I see more evidence that convinces me of this. IP editing enables too many bad actors to game the system for little gain in return. Wikipedia is no longer a new thing that needs to encourage "anyone" to edit. We've been here long enough to have a reputation, and, quite frankly, that reputation is bad enough without allowing all crap and drama that IP editing brings in. BilCat (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the risk of canvassing and/or shooting myself in the foot - have you (@BilCat and @Rockstone35) seen this at VPP? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It does mention privacy, which is a much larger concern than it was 20 years ago, and which I didn't mention here, but should have. BilCat (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, I strongly advise noticing stewards ASAP, as they can edit like bots on our project, they can also do the same things on small wikis. @Vermont, will you take a look on this situation? -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka Squirrels are usually asleep at this time of the day. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was sleepless recently and didn't find it was so late. -Lemonaka‎ 04:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not on this day :p Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stewards can do locally to deal with vandalism that admins can't, Lemonaka. That said, stewards are aware and have made global blocks where appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe they will be aware on time, anyway... -Lemonaka‎ 04:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]